Here is an inquiry from John Lane on the topic of sedevacantists assisting at SSPX Masses, followed by Fr. Cekada's response:

-------------------

Quote:

“The assumption is that the man in the pew consents to the priest naming as pope Benedict XVI, and praying for him as such. When somebody has proof of this proposition, I will be vitally interested in it.”

The underlying assumption — presence deemed to be consent — was the starting point in moral theology for prohibiting Catholics from assisting at an invalid marriage (e.g., that of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister). Such assistance was considered a grave sin because it was a proximate cause of grave scandal and a manifestation of contempt for the authority of the Church.

The same assumption and the identical practical conclusion — don’t assist — would apply to the case of a convinced sedevacantist like Mr. Lane who now assists at an SSPX Mass.

Mr. Lane firmly believes that B16 is neither a true pope nor an orthodox Catholic believer. Nevertheless, he assists actively at a Mass where (1) the priest publicly proclaims in the Canon that B16 IS a true pope and orthodox Catholic believer, and (2) where the priest simultaneously belongs to an organization that refuses subjection to the same “pope.”

From Mr. Lane’s assistance at such a Mass, those present will assume that he consents to the naming of B16 as a true pope and consents to praying for him as such. Or they will assume at the very least that Mr. Lane (well-known sedevacantist and proprietor of a professedly sedevacantist web site) regards the practice of the priest as morally indifferent.

The SSPX priest and the members of his congregation can then draw the following general conclusion: The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic. (“Not even a sedevacantist — John Lane! — acts as if it were.”)

So, whether it be the case of an invalid marriage or a false pope, actions speak the same language: grave scandal and contempt for Church authority.

There are other problems I see in Mr. Lane’s inconsistent and dangerous position — in essence, “Ideas have no consequences” — but these few comments will have to do for the moment.

Here is an inquiry from John Lane on the topic of sedevacantists assisting at SSPX Masses, followed by Fr. Cekada's response:

-------------------

Quote:

“The assumption is that the man in the pew consents to the priest naming as pope Benedict XVI, and praying for him as such. When somebody has proof of this proposition, I will be vitally interested in it.”

The underlying assumption — presence deemed to be consent — was the starting point in moral theology for prohibiting Catholics from assisting at an invalid marriage

The operant word here, as far as I can see, is "assisting". Plus the added factor, "at an invalid marriage". First of all, it is prohibited by other laws of the Church, both ecclesiastical and divine, to "assist" at ANY non-Catholic religious ceremony whatever. Furthermore, it seems that the invalid marriage would have to be known before the fact.

I do not think these prohibitions apply to a Catholic Mass offered by a validly ordained Catholic priest. Am I missing something here?

Quote:

(e.g., that of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister).

Which would have to be known and clearly understood BEFORE the ceremony. After all, marriages are public acts designed so that witnesses can prove the fact of the marriage.

Quote:

Such assistance was considered a grave sin because it was a proximate cause of grave scandal and a manifestation of contempt for the authority of the Church.

Yes. But it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is comparing apples to oranges here.

The first, a civil marriage before a non-Catholic "minister" is different in kind and substance from a Catholic Mass offered by a Catholic minister, and I cannot see that in the latter case the minister's PERSONAL misunderstanding of the situation we think we understand has any bearing on our responsibility.

Quote:

The same assumption and the identical practical conclusion — don’t assist — would apply to the case of a convinced sedevacantist like Mr. Lane who now assists at an SSPX Mass.

I do not agree. The two situations are NOT identical...or even clearly related.

In addition to my reasons given above, it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is presuming to be speaking with the authority of the Church, for which he does not have the competence (in law) to do.

Quote:

Mr. Lane firmly believes that B16 is neither a true pope nor an orthodox Catholic believer. Nevertheless, he assists actively at a Mass where (1) the priest publicly

I may be under a misapprehension here, but I thought the Te Igitur was said "privately", and therefore could not be regarded as a "public" statement by the priest involved.

Quote:

...proclaims in the Canon that B16 IS a true pope and orthodox Catholic believer, and (2) where the priest simultaneously belongs to an organization that refuses subjection to the same “pope.”

Here, dear Fr. Cekada, you appear to be adding into the question the position of the SSPX, of which the importance is a disputed question. How does the official position of the SSPX have any bearing on the actuallity of the priest's actions in question, and especially that of Mr. Lane?

To me, your arguments are not particularly clear, and smack of being self-serving.

Quote:

From Mr. Lane’s assistance at such a Mass, those present will assume that he consents to the naming of B16 as a true pope and consents to praying for him as such.

Mistaken assumptions are no proof for error. I am certain if Mr. Lane were ASKED he would be most forthright in explaining his stance.

Quote:

Or they will assume at the very least that Mr. Lane (well-known sedevacantist and proprietor of a professedly sedevacantist web site) regards the practice of the priest as morally indifferent.

So what? They would be wrong. Most people, including you, are more often wrong than right.

Quote:

The SSPX priest and the members of his congregation can then draw the following general conclusion: The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic. (“Not even a sedevacantist — John Lane! — acts as if it were.”)

Well, I suppose that could be ONE of the conclusions arrived at...

Quote:

So, whether it be the case of an invalid marriage or a false pope, actions speak the same language: grave scandal and contempt for Church authority.

The two scenarios are not equivalent: at least they certainly do not appear so to me. They are somewhat "like" but not "equivalent".

Quote:

There are other problems I see in Mr. Lane’s inconsistent and dangerous position — in essence, “Ideas have no consequences” — but these few comments will have to do for the moment.

Well, I do not know where you got the idea that Mr. Lane has ever said or supported that erroneous statement, when, in fact, he recently wrote a rather long and clearly stated post AGAINST such a stupid idea.

I respectfully request that you thoroughly check your facts before making such accusation.

I will make one further statement: neither you, nor any other Catholic presently alive (as far as we know) in this world has either the competence nor the authority to bind any other Catholic to your way of interpreting such things.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon CinCMoscow, IdahoU.S.A.

Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:19 am

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

Fr. Cekada - Mark II

"The same assumption and the identical practical conclusion — don’t assist — would apply to the case of a convinced sedevacantist like Mr. Lane who now assists at an SSPX Mass." - Bellarmine Forums, 2007.

VS

Fr. Cekada - Mark I

" ... it seems inimical to the salvation of souls -- and just plain silly -- to dream up "extra" requirements to impose on people who have rejected the Conciliar religion for years."

"Priests, bishops and organizations who have played the hierarch have usually ended up inflicting on traditional Catholic groups and individuals false dilemmas, public discord, contrived crises of conscience, scandal, family strife, and a host of other evils -- precisely the sort of things which drive people away from the true Mass rather than draw them to it. " - A Question of Authority, 1990.

I don't see where Father Cekada is being inconsistent here; neither position contradicts the other. I think he he is simply pointing out that, in his opinion, it would be inconsistent to accept the sedevacantist position, and yet assist at a Mass where the priest does accept Benedict XVI as Pope, while belonging to an organization which, their public 'aceptance' policy nowithstanding, refuses to be subject to him. He is not laying down "extra'"requirements, and I know for a fact that he doesn't require anything more for the reception of Holy Communion than what the Church requires. Moreover, he has waged battles AGAINST the 'follow-me-or-die' espoused by not a few groups, and has written frequently on the topic.

If there is an inconsistency here, I am not seeing it.

Sun Aug 12, 2007 10:33 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

He is not laying down "extra'"requirements, and I know for a fact that he doesn't require anything more for the reception of Holy Communion than what the Church requires. Moreover, he has waged battles AGAINST the 'follow-me-or-die' espoused by not a few groups, and has written frequently on the topic.

If there is an inconsistency here, I am not seeing it.

Dear Chris,

I understand. Let me put it in smple terms. The fact that the See of Rome is vacant has not been judged by the Church. It's an opinion.

Follow-me-or-die is defined as threatening others with grave consequences (sin, usually) unless they agree to abide by one's own opinion.

Ergo, Fr. Cekada is making his personal judgement a shibboleth for others lawfully to approach Catholic priests for sacraments.

But I am not really very interested in the actual argument he has presented right now. It's so thin I am too disappointed to address it. I'll get around to it later. And I trust that you noted that Fr. Cekada has held his hand to his chest, suggesting that he has further cards for future play, should this one not prove to be a trump.

What interests me at present is that we have finally, after several years, got an argument out of him for a position he has held for that period. What I would like to know is if this is the reason he changed positions back in the late 90's? And if it is, why did he keep it secret until now? And if not, then why is he presenting this argument, instead of whatever one changed his mind? Can you see how weird the whole situation is? It's as if Fr. Cekada were to begin telling people not to approach Thuc clergy for sacraments, but not say why. We could all assume we knew (invalidity, scandal, unlawfulness?) but we wouldn't know. We would be guessing. We would also be wondering why he was suddenly putting new advice out there in conflict with his previous advice, without discussing the fact that his position had changed at all. That would be surreal. This situation is the same. We had a long-standing position adopted by all sedevacantists at first (including him), and held by nearly all sedevacantists until recently. Then a few priests changed position. Bishop Sanborn at least put his arguments out there. He never actually retracted anything from before, but at least he put his new position and defended it (you know, "it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, it's the una cum, ... and, er... it's not the una cum in the case of 'hypocrites' - it's something else"). But this St. Gertrude the Great situation is just plain weird. Who knows what other changes of position are a-cookin' there, the reasons for which will perhaps come out some years after the advice on some grave matter is reversed by 180 degrees.

Ken Gordon: In addition to my reasons given above, it seems to me that Fr. Cekada is presuming to be speaking with the authority of the Church, for which he does not have the competence (in law) to do.

Quote:

Ken Gordon: I will make one further statement: neither you, nor any other Catholic presently alive (as far as we know) in this world has either the competence nor the authority to bind any other Catholic to your way of interpreting such things.

It is not clear to me how, exactly, Father Cekada is attempting to speak with the the authority of the Church and to bind anyone anyone to his interptretations. I think he would readily admit he has no such authority.

Was it just my imagination, or had there been in the original post a statement to the effect that he and the priests with whom he associates regularly deny Holy Communion to those who do not accept their position? As you have no doubt subsequently discovered, the city is right, but the 'pew' was not. Unless their position has changed since Easter, that had not, and never has, been the policy at Saint Gertrude the Great Church.

Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:25 am

Myrna

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pmPosts: 136Location: Spokane

It is my humble opinion and of course I too am not a theologian. When such a decision must be made I try to look at it through the eyes of God if that is at all possible. I am blessed with a C.M.R.I. parish close to my home, of which I made the decision to move my family there. However when I have traveled and a SSPX is nearby on Sunday, what is more gracious in the eyes of God do you suppose? Ignore Him or Adore Him?

Does the SSPX contain the True Blessed Sacrament on the altar? If so, shouldn't I go a worship God there?

Is God really going to judge me by the question of; do we have a True Pope somewhere in the world?

I believe that God is mercyful enough to look at my intention, I only want to be Catholic, live Catholic and die Catholic. In the meantime if I can receive the True Sacraments from SSPX , why shouldn't I?

Sometime I think about my life and wonder even prior to Vatican II, did I attend a Mass offered by a true valid priest? What if he was a pretender priest, (Mason)?

Doesn't our proper and pure intention count for anything?

_________________Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.

Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:48 pm

JakeRM

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 amPosts: 63

I have to admit it has taken me several readings of Fr. Cekada's argument to work out what exactly he is saying. This might explain why Ken Gordon, AMWills and Chris Browne see things differently. The whole thing is ambiguous, riddled with innuendo, falling just short of a formal condemnation of grave sin but well and truly throwing enough mud so that some will stick and taint a man's reputation. Even if not all see this, some will and have. It's a rainbow, just pick your color.

Here is what I see is the crux of the matter. After several steps, each flawed by unproven assertions, we come to this conclusion which constitutes Part A of the accusation, the implied crime of "grave scandal":

"The SSPX priest and the members of his congregation can then draw the following general conclusion: The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic. (“Not even a sedevacantist — John Lane! — acts as if it were.”)"

Here is my take on it. Fr. Cekada has created an artificial scenario in which the sedeplenist who is thinking about the possible vacancy of the Holy See observes John Lane at Holy Mass, and says to himself, "Oh dear, here was I about to declare the See of Rome vacant, with the practical consequence that I would have to stay home-alone, but now I see that I will still be able to go to Mass like any garden-variety Catholic, so I think I'll just stick with Benedict."

Mind-bending, isn’t it? So, the “grave scandal” is that a sedeplenist will reject the truth of sedevacantism because it will NOT result in the consequence of them avoiding Holy Mass, depriving themselves of the sacraments nor withdrawing communion from other Catholics???

In your dreams.

If anybody believes that this "scandal" has ever occurred, or would likely ever occur, they need their head read. Actually, in my experience one of the most powerful factors preventing sedeplenist layman from seriously considering sedevacantism is the thought that they might end up home-alone. It terrifies them. Fr. Cekada is only adding to this fear. John Lane and other like-minded sedevacantists, by their actions do their little bit to remove this real scandal and fear which many people associate with sedevacantism.

The underlying assumption — presence deemed to be consent — was the starting point in moral theology for prohibiting Catholics from assisting at an invalid marriage (e.g., that of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister). Such assistance was considered a grave sin because it was a proximate cause of grave scandal and a manifestation of contempt for the authority of the Church.

The key error in my humble view is that good Father Cekada is giving an example of a situation that was already ruled on by the authority of the Catholic Church i.e. what groups weddings are in fact Non-Catholic.

This is missing in today’s environment; The See of Rome being vacant-has NOT been ruled on by the authority of the Catholic Church, it is as Mr. John Lane has mentioned many times " a opinion". Granted, in my view ( with of course zero authority) it is the most likely explanation for the current crisis, but that is really beside the point.

Why act as if una cum masses are Non-Catholic when the current state of the Church is "eclipsed"? It boggles my mind ! Not to mention, it does not appear to hold up to scrutiny based on tradition i.e. Catholic tradition.

In Xto,
Vincent

Sun Aug 12, 2007 6:37 pm

sacerdos

Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:44 amPosts: 34

I found one of the sentences in Fr. Cekada’s post above to be really interesting:

Quote:

The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic.

This statement sounds like the attitude of sedes on this forum who say it is acceptable for them to assist at SSPX Masses in which the priest names B16 as pope in the Canon.

Maybe these sedes could discuss whether or not the quote I’ve given from Fr. Cekada also describes what THEIR position is.

Sun Aug 12, 2007 9:22 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

sacerdos wrote:

The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic.

This line of rhetoric is one I've studiously ignored before. Father has used it several times over a long period now, despite the fact that I've never bitten. I'll tell you why.

1. Father knows that it isn't a true or just representation of my own position. He knows this because I spent four years without regular access to the sacraments because of my religious convictions (the only local chapel was served by both a traditional priest and a Novus "priest" and I did not feel I could attend it). You'll need to ask him how he forgot this.

2. Father knows better than to construct an argument this faulty. The fact that anybody does not accept the specific conclusion drawn by Fr. Anthony Cekada does not mean that he draws no conclusions whatsoever. This is arguing from a single specific to the general. I don't imagine anybody beyond the age of fourteen would buy it. It also savours of "follow me or die".

3. The sedevacantist solution is not adopted in order to solve some grave practical problem. It is adopted in order to resolve a theoretical problem - essentially, where is the Church? The human mind is so constructed as to demand a consistent, coherent, view of things. It is this same fundamental truth that Fr. Cekada abuses by posing the false suggestion that those who fail to deprive themselves of Mass and the sacraments because of their sedevacantism are "inconsistent." Nobody wants to be inconsistent. But even if taking the sedevacantist position implied zero practical consequences, it would still be a necessary step.

4. If it is claimed that "obedience" makes the problem practical, not just theoretical, then we may legitimately answer that St. Thomas on the nature of obedience provides us with sufficient grounds for rejecting the new religion. I don't suppose that Fr. Cekada is so soft and self-serving as to allow this argument to suffice for himself in the 1970s, but not for others in later decades.

5. Father Cekada needs to tell us whether he condemns all those sedevacantists, including himself, who didn't draw this allegedly necessary practical conclusion before now. Did all of those famous sedevacantists from the 70s, 80s, and 90s fall under this acerbic condemnation? If not, why not? (While he is explaining this, he might like to touch upon the delicate question of why he kept his reasoning secret until now, instead of informing other sedevacantists of this grave issue of morality, but this is secondary.)

6. The Oyster Bay Nine attempted to strong-arm Archbishop Lefebvre into institutionalising Opinionism with respect to the pope issue, and when they departed from the SSPX and set up their own institute, they incorporated this precious doctrine into their own Declaration of Principles. Here is Point #10 of their manifesto (1984):

Quote:

Among Catholics who are presently adhering to tradition, bishops, priests, and laity alike, we observe a marked difference of opinion concerning the legitimacy of the present hierarchy. We hold that there is certain and sufficient evidence to assert, as a legitimate theological opinion, that anyone who publicly professes the conciliar religion does not legitimately hold any position of authority in the Catholic Church for the reasons stated in paragraph seven. While we do not claim the authority to settle this question definitively, we believe that the legitimacy of this theological opinion is dictated by logic and a correct application of Catholic theological principles. We recognize that the definitive and authoritative resolution to such theological questions rests ultimately with the magisterium of the Church. We thus deplore the attempt of some to settle this question by acting as though they had the authority to bind the consciences of the faithful in matters which have not been definitively settled by the Church.

I concur with that presentation, although I note the deliberate ambiguity of the phrase, "publicly professes the conciliar religion" - touching as it does the keenly discussed problem of how directly the various "reforms" contradict the Faith. The real issue between myself and Fr. Cekada seems to me to be this one. He is effectively elevating our commonly held opinion into a shibbleth for membership in the Church, or at least into the matter of sin. His parallel with attendance at a forbidden marriage rests upon this (alleged) equivalence of status.

Do these observations assist, Sacerdos? Or am I missing your point? I'm more than willing to discuss all of this.

Was it just my imagination, or had there been in the original post a statement to the effect that he and the priests with whom he associates regularly deny Holy Communion to those who do not accept their position? As you have no doubt subsequently discovered, the city is right, but the 'pew' was not. Unless their position has changed since Easter, that had not, and never has, been the policy at Saint Gertrude the Great Church.

Yes, there was, but it was an error on my part, as you accurately point out.

When I wrote that last night, I was very tired, and with my aged, foggy brain, had thought I remembered that Fr. Cekada was still a member of the SSPV.

Many years ago, I had written a letter to Fr. Kelly decrying their extreme...uh..."exclusivism". Although he subsequently changed his tune, it looks like he has fallen back into that morass.

My erroneous statement was edited out.

Good catch on your part.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon CinCMoscow, IdahoU.S.A.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:28 am

eliz carroll

Any time a group forms which places the sedevacantism theory before good, old-fashioned Catholicism trouble follows. It's a shaky foundation, and a severe temptation to all sorts of difficulties. I tend to think the una cum thingie is just another device to keep people riled up so they won't notice the difficulties. The time spent writing the articles and sermons attacking the SSPX would be better spent visiting the sick and the prisons.

I thought I had seen it, and couldn't find it when I went to retrieve it. I'm just relieved I hadn't imagined it, because I'm getting up there, too!

Mon Aug 13, 2007 3:52 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

eliz carroll wrote:

Any time a group forms which places the sedevacantism theory before good, old-fashioned Catholicism trouble follows.

True.

You know, this whole scenario is eerily familiar to anybody who follows public affairs. The anti-SSPX Mass position is the neo-conservativism of sedevacantism. It's dressed up as "hard-line" and solid, but it's really a novelty which undermines the true good of souls. We should call it neo-sedevacantism to distinguish it from the real thing.

Perhaps I am dense (I know it is quite the understatement; the breeze from the nodding heads out there could generate enough power for, well, a "Global Warming Concert", or maybe it IS responsible for global warming), but I really need to set aside some time to really study this, because I simply am not seeing what many of you see. I am not trying to be provacative, just honest, and I need to step aside and digest all of this.

I understand that the question of the legitimacy of B16 is an opinion, and it remains for the Church to decide. I am sure we can all agree that that cannot come too soon.

Neither am I seeing where Father Cekada is threatening anyone with consequences graver than 'inconsistency', nor is he employing a 'follow-me-or-die' standard.

I've known Father Cekada for some 30 years, have read all of his written works, and must honestly ask, "What has changed?" Aside from the validity of the Thuc consecrations, I mean; Father has readily and humbly admitted that he had changed his position, and I am inclined to think, if he was candid then, why wouldn't he be now? Afterall, I am just assuming good will.

Again, I am not trying to be provocative. I just do not see it. What would be the consensus if, in place of a Mass said by a priest of the SSPX, the Mass was offered under the provisions of the Indult and under the aegis of the local bishop? Would the argument be different? Again - just asking.

I hope and pray that the day comes when these discussions are purely academic. In my lifetime would be nice, but in God's own time.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:28 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Chris Browne wrote:

I am not trying to be provacative, just honest, and I need to step aside and digest all of this.

Dear Chris,

Sure, you've missed a lot of water under this particular bridge. For Fr. Cekada, this a very big deal. The same applies to Bishop Sanborn and a few of the laymen who push the same end result - stay home alone rather than hear Mass offered by a sedeplenist.

But even in this present thread, Fr. Cekada's allegation was of "grave scandal and contempt for Church authority" and he added rather ominously, "[t]here are other problems I see in Mr. Lane’s inconsistent and dangerous position..."

"Dangerous" is a strong word.

Chris Browne wrote:

I've known Father Cekada for some 30 years, have read all of his written works, and must honestly ask, "What has changed?" Aside from the validity of the Thuc consecrations, I mean; Father has readily and humbly admitted that he had changed his position, and I am inclined to think, if he was candid then, why wouldn't he be now? Afterall, I am just assuming good will.

OK, we're coming at this from the same perspective. My experience of him is less than 20 years, but I have the same view as you. Why has he changed position but not said so? Why did he keep his argument secret until now? Why did he treat this change differently from how he treated the Thuc-line change? Only he can answer these questions.

Chris Browne wrote:

I hope and pray that the day comes when these discussions are purely academic. In my lifetime would be nice, but in God's own time.

Amen.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:44 am

AMWills

Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:13 amPosts: 138

I have given this topic a lot of thought and I am, quite frankly, bewildered and shocked.

Fr Cekada, a priest to whom I and countless others are indebted, for his many well researched and extensively referenced writings on the Catholic religion, has embarked on a public attack of other Catholics without providing one reference or authority to support his view. Nothing is presented which one can look-up, check, clarify, verify or further investigate. Not one.

Then the Catholic in question is smeared with unseemly insinuations and thinly veiled accusations such as:

having contempt for the authority of the Church
giving grave scandal
holding an inconsistent and dangerous position
acting on the principle that "ideas have no consequences"

Not only is John Lane's reputation singled out for such an undeserving assault, but the onus would appear to be shifted to him to provide authorities in order to defend his good name and motives against such unsupported accusations as they rear their ugly heads, with the knowledge that as he disposes of one there will be more to follow:

"There are other problems I see in Mr. Lane’s inconsistent and dangerous position — in essence, “Ideas have no consequences” — but these few comments will have to do for the moment."

"For the moment"! So there are more to come? Good grief, how can this be happening? Is this how Catholics behave towards each other? Is it how they behave towards anyone, for that matter? It is not even how the world treats its own - innocent until proven guilty. Not even the world shifts the burden of proof onto the victim.

The onus is not on SSPX attending sedes to prove they have an obligation to obey the laws of the Church, but rather on those advising non attendance at a valid Mass and the fulfillment of the Sunday obligation , to prove authoritatively their claim in which they advocate going against the clear law of the Church.

I must make clear that one of the things Fr. Cekada did in the post which Sacerdos posted was his blatant attempt to equate attendance at a completely and obviously non-Catholic marriage ceremony with attendance at a Catholic Mass offered by a validly ordained Catholic priest.

Furthermore, he didn't come out and SAY they were equal: he implied it.

It was obvious to me that he was simply saying that for a true Catholic priest to include the name of the latest anti-pope in his Mass made that priest, and anyone attending that Mass, an heretic, and thus, out of the Church.

THIS is what I meant by Fr. Cekada's making statements for which he has neither the competence nor the authority under law.

In other words, according to Fr. Cekada, if you don't believe as HE does, that Benny and the boys are heretics, apostates, anti-popes, YOU are the same as they.

This is simply abominable.

_________________Kenneth G. Gordon CinCMoscow, IdahoU.S.A.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:11 pm

eliz carroll

In July of 2006 Fr.'s sermon on the grave sinfullness of attending an SSPX mass was right there on SGG's sermon playlist. I don't think it is such a big secret.

Throw mud and see what sticks. This appears to be an intimidation tactic to scare people from leaving. When people get wise to whatever mud is being slung, it's off to another subject. Create a problem and offer a solution...

Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:03 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

eliz carroll wrote:

This appears to be an intimidation tactic to scare people from leaving. When people get wise to whatever mud is being slung, it's off to another subject. Create a problem and offer a solution...

Dear Eliz,

It's easy for this rubbish to affect us. We must not permit it to do so. If we render to those who attack us the same treatment they render to us, the devil wins. This is exactly what he wants us to do.

But further, we can't enter into motives. I am as confused about the origins of this campaign against the SSPX as anybody. It is thoroughly internally inconsistent, it has not been conducted openly and in a logical manner, and as I've pointed out already, even the fact that Fr. Cekada has changed position is left unacknowledged. But despite observing these facts and pointing them out in order to undermine the campaign and provoke further thought on the part of the campaigners and their indended targets, we cannot enter into motives. We certainly cannot ascribe evil motives.

No doubt the explanation is something simple enough, such as that these men have spent so long focussing on the vacancy of the Holy See that it has become, firstly the main issue for them, and then subsequently almost the only issue. It becomes an easy step from there to lose clarity about what is really important, and before long you're recommending that folks avoid sacraments (despite the law of the Church) in order to witness to the vacancy of the Holy See (despite the lack of a ruling by the Church). In other words, one's opinions become of greater importance than the laws of the Church.

This is neo-sedevacantism. If you're against it, you're unpatriotic (i.e. against the real importance of the papacy) and in favour of Islam (i.e. assisting the New Religion).

And just as with neo-conservatism, the fruit is a kind of moral crusade conducted without proper reference to the moral law, and just as with neo-conservatism the young who lack wisdom are easily fooled by the sophistical arguments in favour of illegal and immoral wars, and just as with neo-conservatism there are innocent men pushing for the agenda created for them by others. This is why I have always highlighted the historical aspect of this question. It assists to regain or retain balance and perspective to know that most sedevacantists never thought the neo-sedevacantist way, and that the origins of the anti-una-cum idea were with non-sedevacantist Guerard des Lauriers and, in a different form, then-recent convert Martin Gwynne (who also concluded that taking salt with one's dinner was sinful). In the case of neo-conservatism, the main proponents were ex-Trotskyites turned social-conservative, but who still believe in big government and "exporting the revolution" (i.e. "exporting democracy").

There is nothing so revealing as the pedigree of ideas. Fr. Cekada recognises this truth, and he attempts to make others focus on my personal situation in order to convince them that I only think the way I do because if I altered my position I'd have to stay home alone. "Geography determines theology" he says - or, in other words, the pedigree of my ideas is necessity. But this is to invert the whole history of the thing. He's the one with the novelty. He's the one who changed position. He is the one in the minority, even amongst sedevacantist clergy - and radically so. It's the origin of his idea which is interesting. Mine was simply inherited from those who came before, without any alteration. Geography certainly has a great deal of influence on theology. If you're a St. Gertrude's parishioner you're probably going to think the way the clergy there think. It's only natural. And if you rely upon the SSPX for Mass and the sacraments you're going to be forced to sharpen your wits and analyse what matters, because of the kind of campaign we are facing here. In that sense I am actually grateful I am reliant upon the SSPX. I am horrified by the kind of thinking which seems so easily to take root in people who are physically isolated from sedeplenists.

Anyway, I'm rambling now. My point was to counsel you to avoid judging motives. With a little effort it possible to believe well of our opponents. In the case of these men, they offer the Holy Sacrifice every morning, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. They're not the enemy. They're just mistaken about one thing.

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Aug 13, 2007 8:39 pm

JakeRM

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 8:06 amPosts: 63

Scandal

Does anybody know where I can find some information on the theological definition of scandal and what it really means? I think people use this term so loosely today, that they don't really know its proper meaning in moral theology. It would be understandable if Fr. Cekada assumes that everyone knows. However, clarification and distinction can only add to the fruits and understanding of this discussion, in my opinion.

I have the book "My Catholic Faith" which says: "Scandal is given when we injure our neighbor's soul by causing or tempting him to sin."

I don't see that acknowledging Benedict as pope is a sin. I think this needs more thought.

I have the book "My Catholic Faith" which says: "Scandal is given when we injure our neighbor's soul by causing or tempting him to sin."

I don't see that acknowledging Benedict as pope is a sin. I think this needs more thought.

Great point. I have been hoping for the past few days to find time to scan and post some lengthy extracts from McHugh & Callan's Moral Theology on scandal. The theology of scandal is very rich, and in this connection bears pondering. I'll get to that later in the week. In the mean time, I encourage everybody to read the lengthy extract from Fr. Faber I'm about to post on another thread (it's too good to bury in this thread!).

1445. Scandal. — Scandal is derived from a Greek word signifying a snare or trap prepared for an enemy, or a stone or block laid in the road that he may stumble or trip over it. In use, it is applied in a wide or general sense, and in a strict or special sense. (a) in its wide sense, it refers to any kind of harm, especially of a spiritual or moral nature, that one brings on others. (h) in its strict sense, it refers to a fall into sin which one occasions for others by misconduct.

1446. The following are some examples of the word “scandal” as employed in its wide sense: (a) It is used to signify physical or natural injuries of various kinds. Thus, the servants of Pharaoh called the plagues brought on Egypt by Moses a scandal (Exod., x. 7), and the Psalmist says of the sinner that lie laid a scandal (calumny) against his brother (Ps. xlix. 20). Those who spread defamatory gossip are called scandal-mongers, and “scandal” often signifies opprobrium or disgrace, as when Shakespeare speaks of the wrangling of nobles as a scandal to the crown. (b) The word “scandal” is also used to signify moral injuries distinct from inducement to sin. Thus, the shock and offense given to virtuous persons by blasphemous language spoken in their hearing is described as a scandal, and one who would prevent another from following some more perfect course or practice to which there is no obligation (such as entering religion, saying grace at meals, etc.), is sometimes said to scandalize.

1447. Definition of Scandal — In the strict sense, scandal is defined as “any conduct that has at least the appearance of evil and that offers to a neighbor an occasion of spiritual ruin.”

(a) By conduct is understood external behavior or manner of acting in the presence of others. Thus, scandal differs from sin, for sin is committed, not only by external acts done before others, but also by internal thoughts and desires and external acts that are secret.(b) Scandal is conduct which is evil at least in appearance, that is, sinful, or from the circumstances seemingly sinful. Thus, an act is not scandalous, if it is morally indifferent or a less good, and is perceivable as being such.(e) Scandal tends to spiritual ruin, that is, to a fall into sin, great or small. Here scandal strictly understood differs from scandal in the wide senses given in the previous paragraph.(d) Scandal is an occasion of a fall into sin, that is, it sets an example of sin before the attention, and thus suggests to the will that the will imitate the sin. Scandal is not, however, the cause of sin, for a person causes his own sin in yielding consent to the suggestion offered by scandal.(e) Scandal is to another. A person may be said to scandalize himself in the sense that by his looks or acts he puts himself in an occasion of sin (Matt., v. 29, 30), or inasmuch as he maliciously makes the acts of a virtuous neighbor an occasion of sin; but scandal is more properly understood of an occasion of sin prepared for one’s neighbor.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:04 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Answering Fr. Cekada's argument that began this thread.

I had written,

John Lane wrote:

The assumption is that the man in the pew consents to the priest naming as pope Benedict XVI, and praying for him as such. When somebody has proof of this proposition, I will be vitally interested in it.

Fr. Cekada responded:

sacerdos wrote:

The underlying assumption — presence deemed to be consent — was the starting point in moral theology for prohibiting Catholics from assisting at an invalid marriage (e.g., that of a Catholic before a non-Catholic minister). Such assistance was considered a grave sin because it was a proximate cause of grave scandal and a manifestation of contempt for the authority of the Church.

The same assumption and the identical practical conclusion — don’t assist — would apply to the case of a convinced sedevacantist like Mr. Lane who now assists at an SSPX Mass.

It isn’t clear what this argument essentially consists in, since it has been presented in such an informal manner. But it would appear to comprise the following steps:

1. The active assistance of a Catholic at a sacred ceremony is deemed as approval of that ceremony.2. The celebration of Mass in which the celebrant acknowledges Benedict as pope is equivalent to a sacrilegious attempt at marriage.3. Therefore, a Catholic ought not to assist at a Mass in which the celebrant acknowledges Benedict as pope.

I don’t think this presentation misses any of the logic intended by Fr. Cekada. But it makes it clear what that logic is. In any case, if I have misunderstood the argument he is able to inform me via email, or “Sacerdos” may do so here.

My response to this argument is as follows:

1. I distinguish. I concede that the layman in the pew, by his very presence, would be thought to approve of the priest offering Mass, praying the prayers, etc. I do not concede that the layman in the pew would be deemed to agree with the choices of the priest in regard to the status of Benedict XVI. (I have been somewhat bemused at times over the past few years to hear that I have been abused roundly by various parties for not conceding this, on the grounds that it is “obvious” that the layman in the pew would be thought to agree with the priest’s sedeplenism. I invite those superior persons to explain the history of the sedevacantist reaction to the crisis, with special emphasis on the absence of recognition by almost all “senior” sedevacantists of this thing which is so “obvious” to them now.)

John Daly made this distinction here last year, and nobody so much as attempted to address it:

John Daly wrote:

The priest at Mass uses the Church's approved liturgy and we can safely associate ourselves with every word of it. But he also includes (or omits) the name of a bishop and a pope, the persons living and dead for whom he wishes to pray, and (mentally) the intention for which he is offering the Mass; These points are inaudible. Indeed at High Mass the rubrics require the Master of Ceremonies to withdraw so that he does not hear the intentions of the Mementos. What is the evidence that the faithful by the fact of assisting at a Mass necessarily associate themselves with and share these prayers, intentions, recognitions?

For instance suppose I find myself assisting at a Mass which the priest is offering for the intention that a certain country may win a given war, whereas I earnestly believe that the country in question is in the wrong. Must I abstain from assisting at his Mass?

I acknowledge that in the early centuries the "una cum" or equivalent clauses were read aloud at least in the East so that the faithful could know whether the priest was a Catholic. But they based that judgment on whether he was naming persons who had been condemned by the Church as heretics or schismatics. A priest who knowingly names condemned heretics is himself outside the Church. That is not the situation today. We are facing something more complicated: men who are dangerous heretics pretending to be popes and bishops of the Catholic Church but who have not been directly condemned.

That imposes on us a double duty of prudence: rejecting and avoiding the enemy while refusing to treat his status as if it were what it would be if the Church had directly condemned him. It isn't. And it makes a big difference as to the status of those who have not yet fully understood the present state of the Church.

May the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus unite all minds in truth and all hearts in charity.

2. I deny. The notion that a Mass in which the celebrant acknowledges Benedict as pope is equivalent to a sacrilegious attempt at marriage is extraordinary and I think manifestly wrong. In any case, what is gratuitously asserted falls with a simple denial. If Fr. Cekada really thinks there is any equivalence I invite him to demonstrate it. Until he does, I think that it displays more respect towards Fr. Cekada to deny that he believes it.

3. The conclusion is not established.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:07 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Now, let us consider the remaining material presented by Fr. Cekada in support of this very bad argument. It consists of attempts to show that the assistance of a sedevacantist at a sedeplenist Mass is scandalous. That is, that it tends to lead others into sin. “Scandal tends to spiritual ruin, that is, to a fall into sin, great or small.” (McHugh and Callan). What sin? Recognition of Benedict? Since when did that become a sin? Is Fr. Cekada of the opinion (which he has not announced to anybody yet) that recognition of Benedict is in itself a sin? Which law is violated by this mistaken recognition? Has Fr. Cekada ever accepted from a penitent, as matter for confession, the mere fact that the subject had acknowledged Benedict as pope? Has Fr. Cekada ever demanded from anyone the recognition of the vacancy, as a condition of admission to the sacraments? Let’s hope not!

But let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that acknowledgement of Benedict’s claim is a sin. Where does this get us?

Fr. Cekada claims,

sacerdos wrote:

From Mr. Lane’s assistance at such a Mass, those present will assume that he consents to the naming of B16 as a true pope and consents to praying for him as such. Or they will assume at the very least that Mr. Lane (well-known sedevacantist and proprietor of a professedly sedevacantist web site) regards the practice of the priest as morally indifferent.

The SSPX priest and the members of his congregation can then draw the following general conclusion: The identity of the Roman Pontiff (is B16 a true pope or not?) and actual subjection to him as such is a matter of NO practical consequence to a Catholic. (“Not even a sedevacantist — John Lane! — acts as if it were.”)

Is this analysis realistic? Do sedeplenists think that the presence of a sedevacantist at Holy Mass indicates acceptance of Benedict’s claim or indifference towards the issue of the vacancy of the Holy See?

No. And the historical evidence for this is overwhelming. Only in recent years has the question even arisen, and even then it only originated from excessively abstract theorists of the Cassiciacum Thesis school.

What really happens is something like the following process.

Catholics react against the doctrinal, moral, and liturgical evils and chaos of the Conciliar revolt, and find their way back to traditional practices (insofar as they have departed from them). In doing so they are confronted with attempts to prevent their escape by the application of “obedience” to the Conciliar authorities. Having discovered that obedience can never be demanded in favour of sin, they dismiss such attempts and continue to remain in, or to move to, safety.

Having achieved relative safety (i.e. having gotten secure access to the true worship and sacraments of the Church, away from the errors and heresies and malice of Conciliarism), the more intellectual of the faithful subsequently attempt to produce a thesis which will provide a satisfactory theoretical framework for the situation, both in order to ensure that the practice of the faith is integral, and also in the hope of a cogent speculative view. That is, in order to ensure that things such as doubtfully ordained priests are avoided (the practical order), and also purely to find intellectual peace amidst the distressing confusion of the situation (the speculative order).

The sede vacante thesis is such a theoretical explanation of the crisis. Others are the Cassiciacum Thesis and the “philosophical insanity” idea of Bishop Williamson. There have been many others, most of which are now defunct.

Now, this speculation does not necessarily cause any distress or disunion unless and until it is brought into the practical sphere. One such example is the theory that the New Rite of Ordination is essentially defective, or the theory of Archbishop Lefebvre that the deficient formation by the Conciliar seminaries results in more and more concrete cases of defective ministerial intention, so that the validity of Holy Mass, and of the sacred orders of men ordained in the Conciliar milieu, is doubted. Such men must be avoided, insofar as the sacraments are concerned, and this causes conflict.

Likewise, if and when men decide that the difference of judgement concerning the status of the V2 “popes” is to be imposed insensitively on others willy-nilly, or worse, is sufficient reason to cut off liturgical communion with others. This causes conflict.

And as a final example, if and when some men decide that it is their role to solve the crisis by electing a true pope, this causes conflict.

Some of this conflict is unavoidable; it is all lamentable. Insofar as it leads others into sin, it is truly scandalous. Some of this scandal is unavoidable; much of it is not.

But in relation to the pope issue, and keeping in mind our hypothetical supposition (which is quite false in reality) that it is sinful in itself to acknowledge Benedict as pope, what have been some of the “scandals” (i.e. “stumbling blocks”) that are reasons why most traditional Catholics have not seriously considered, or a fortiori, actually adopted, the sede vacante thesis? Let’s put them into list format, and simplify them into a single sentence or two each – but hopefully sufficiently clear all the same.

1. The Palmar de Troya schism.2. Francis Schuckardt3. The Oyster Bay Nine split, with its scandalous lawsuits etc.4. The various other “home” papal elections5. The various home-alone theorists promoting sacrament-less religion. The idea that by adopting the sedevacantist position one might end up without the sacraments makes sedevacantism odious to traditional Catholics.6. Sedevacantist splits and in-fighting (e.g. the splits amongst the “Nine”)7. Unjust accusations made by various sedevacantists (e.g. that Archbishop Lefebvre is the “false opposition” working secretly for the Masons).

How do we know that these various scandals have given sedevacantism a bad name amongst traditional Catholics generally? Because traditional Catholics tell us so.

This is not to suggest that “scandals” are the main reason that the sedevacantist position is not popular. I think the main reasons are threefold:

1. Most people are not particularly given to speculation, and they don’t therefore feel the need to resolve the theoretical aspects of the crisis. The idea that it might lead one away from the sacraments only adds to the general dislike for speculative effort.

2. The very notion of rejecting the claim of the man almost everybody regards as truly pope feels un-Catholic (i.e. schismatic or at least stupendously proud) to most traditional Catholics.

3. As soon as anybody looks into the sedevacantist thesis it occurs to them to ask, “how will this crisis be resolved, by the election of a true pope, if there are no more cardinals etc.?” In other words, sedevacantism looks like a dead end.

But understanding these factors doesn’t alter our main question here, which is to put into perspective the effect on others of sedevacantists assisting at Masses offered by non-sedevacantist priests. Fr. Cekada seems to me to be entirely divorced from reality in proposing that this might give scandal. Most traditional Catholics are quite unsurprised that their sedevacantist brethren wish to assist at Holy Mass and receive the sacraments just as they do themselves. This is not even remarkable and does not therefore, in my experience, produce much in the way of remark. But insofar as the typical traditional Catholic adverts to this claimed anomaly the effect is quite the contrary of Fr. Cekada’s supposition. Such people find it edifying that our sedevacantism does not produce in us the effects that they consider scandalous in others (e.g. hurling anathemas over legitimately disputed matters, issuing follow-me-or-die pronouncements, saying stupid and calumnious things about innocent, hard-working, humble, priests, abandoning the sacraments for the home Rosary and spiritual communions, etc.). Comments such as “He’s a sedevacantist, but he’s OK” are the kind of thing one might hear.

This is not to say that sedevacantists have not taken scandal from the sacramental union of other sedevacantists with sedeplenists. They have indeed taken scandal, in a broad sense. That is, they have gasped, held their hands to their mouths, pointed at us, and generally acted shocked. I speak metaphorically, of course.

We should now be in a position to assess Fr. Cekada’s closing comments:

sacerdos wrote:

There are other problems I see in Mr. Lane’s inconsistent and dangerous position — in essence, “Ideas have no consequences” — but these few comments will have to do for the moment.

Fr. Cekada would perhaps do better to focus on the “problems” of the inconsistent and dangerous activity which he and Bishop Sanborn have decided to engage in, which is to convince traditional Catholics to stay home alone rather than assist at Holy Mass offered by Catholic priests; and he might best be convinced to do this if he could be gotten to spend some time meditating on the likely effects of sacrament-deprivation on others, particularly children; and this meditation might best be conducted after reviewing the seriousness of the First Precept of the Church, originating as it does from divine wisdom; and he might draw even greater fruit from this meditation if he were to keep in view the fact that my assistance at Holy Mass is none of his business, whereas the spiritual sustenance of my own children is absolutely and inalienably my own very grave responsibility, and that I would be a complete fool to follow his unsolicited advice in the absence of a closely-reasoned, maturely developed, scientific presentation.

_________________In Christ our King.

Last edited by Admin on Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:38 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

To those neo-sedevacantists, such as Bishop Sanborn and Fr. Cekada, who recommend avoiding worship in common with non-sedevacantist traditional Catholics:

We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshiped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:54 pm

Phillipus Iacobus

Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2012 2:21 amPosts: 55Location: California, USA

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

In my recent discussions with some sedevacantists, I've noticed an anti-SSPX sentiment. The negativity results not only due to disagreements regarding the crisis in the Church, but that the SSPX position, even though held in common error, is "schismatic."

I would be first to say that the SSPX approach is erroneous, and upon realizing this I acknowledged the vacancy of the Holy See. However, the fundamental stance of sedevacantists and SSPXers is to oppose the conciliar novelties, heresies, and errors, and uphold the one, true Faith whole and inviolate.

Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:46 pm

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re:

John Lane wrote:

eliz carroll wrote:

Any time a group forms which places the sedevacantism theory before good, old-fashioned Catholicism trouble follows.

True.

You know, this whole scenario is eerily familiar to anybody who follows public affairs. The anti-SSPX Mass position is the neo-conservativism of sedevacantism. It's dressed up as "hard-line" and solid, but it's really a novelty which undermines the true good of souls. We should call it neo-sedevacantism to distinguish it from the real thing.

By the way I just noticed, that BF has an una cum thread, so my apologies for being late to the discussion!

I would generally have agreed with this principle, but the problem is that the una cum issue was always a matter of prudential judgement. As such as circumstances change, it makes a difference as to the moral scandal one gives etc... Mass attendance with a certain priest, has and always been a matter of prudential judgement. This is why if you would go to a SSPX mass center, and then they replaced it with a priest with dubious orders many SSPX faithful would not attend his mass, because the circumstances have changed (see this principle is applied by both sedeplenist and sedevacantist all the time). This is not just my opinion, but the Thomist opinion. So there are other reasons why one can abstain as Canon Lawyers and other moralist have argued, so if for example you know from being a first hand witness that the priest has a concubine. You would be permitted to abstain from his mass. Now if it was just an unfounded rumor then one could still be able to attend such a mass, but the main point is that it is very much a question of prudential judgement.

Quote:

Part 3, Q. 82 A. 9: Whether it is permissible to receive communion from heretical, excommunicate, or sinful priests, and to hear mass said by them?On the contrary, The Canon says (Dist. 32): "Let no one hear the mass of a priest whom he knows without doubt to have a concubine."

...But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church's sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church's sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their mass. Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, "with such a one not so much as to eat," Augustine's gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God's law, according to the Church's ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted."

The Vatican II sect, has become so Protestant so overt, so blatant about its heresies. That to keep making the same arguments from Vatican II and to totally ignore EVERYTHING that has been written authoritatively as commentary, religious decrees, magisterial documents from the Vatican after Vatican II. Is to have a completely un-Catholic spirit and attitude to a degree that if the person understands how anti-Catholic it is, I am sure he sins mortally against faith. It is not merely heresy that damns you to hell, there are also many propositions which are important to hold in order to be saved (die in the state of grace). While the Church does not believe that a man who holds abortion is okay, is a heretic, she does say that it is a mortal sin against morals to hold such a position. Yes, more recently she has added ipso facto excommunication (must be noted that this excommunication is not the type that makes you a non-member of the Church, but rather an ecclesiastical censure), but there are many recent propositions that sedeplenist are holding that are mortal sins against faith. +Williamson and company are a great example of how bad things are getting to be in the sedeplenist world. You are left with a catch 22 at every turn, either defend these men as merely minimally Catholic by reducing Church teaching, rejecting Church teaching or many other theological gymnastic methods that sp'ist apologist use. Now I am not making a Universal judgement that all of them are at the same position, but things are becoming much more gray. So that someone cannot feel compelled to attend the mass of a priest who celebrates una cum. Now as to receiving other sacraments such as matrimony, extreme unction, confession, baptism and even confirmation, all of those are perfectly okay. Assuming that there is no other independent priest available, this issue is mostly dealing where you have to attend an una cum, ceremony (mass, Benediction etc...). To publicly profess a false proposition, and communion with heretics. The Church cannot force you to do such a thing, you may attend it if you feel compelled (reduces the guilt if you are under duress), but nevertheless it is not mandatory. Some people would argue that to attend any Independent mass is not mandatory, I would say that is completely stupid. Even if these men are not the ordinary ministers of the Church, and only have supplied jurisdiction. Catholics have no right to decide not to attend any mass (home alone), if they do have a moral choice. A moral choice would be non una cum, orthodox Catholic priest who is not living in public grave scandalous sinful situation.

The reason why more recently I stopped attending una cum masses, is quite different then that espoused by Father Cekada. I do not believe that an una cum mass is mortally sinful to attend, as some might assert. This is especially true of those who do hold the sedeplenist position. Rather I do not attend it, because it constitute as moral duress. I am not obligated to go to the una cum, but if I do decide to go under the principle of duress. If I thought it was mortally sinful NOT to attend Sunday mass, even if it is una cum (this definitely constitutes as duress). Then the una cum, would definitely not be by any means "mortally sinful" as Fr. Cekada and others argue. The same reasoning applies to those who would feel forced to attend a Novus Ordo mass for their Holy Day of obligation, I know the few times I ever attended the New Mass (I would never participate in it). Precisely because of distubers of consciences and a bad case of scruples I would attend, because I felt forced and compelled. Later on I thought about it, and would God ever force me to do something that was displeasing to him in the first place? Therefore, after that I never attended the new mass because once you are capable of grasping the principles, your conscience can be more at ease.

For if a SV'ist had a choice, he would choose the non-una cum mass hands down. Many feel COMPELLED to attend some Sunday mass, but my main argument is that an una cum mass falls under duress and therefore is not obligatory. Yes, Comrade Bergoglio makes a huge difference to this argument. I think under anti-B. XVI many were lulled under the possibility that the man was doing some "good" and dressing with all those wonderful Pontifical regalia definitely did not help. How badly, I wished to have a man who was a Catholic in the Vatican. But wishful thinking, can never be a theological reality. This is why many self-delude themselves to blindly think that it is impossible that the men are apostates.

Any time a group forms which places the sedevacantism theory before good, old-fashioned Catholicism trouble follows. It's a shaky foundation, and a severe temptation to all sorts of difficulties. I tend to think the una cum thingie is just another device to keep people riled up so they won't notice the difficulties. The time spent writing the articles and sermons attacking the SSPX would be better spent visiting the sick and the prisons.

This might have been true before, but not any more. For many of the SSPX faithful are accepting propositions that are mortally sinful against faith. Such as denying canonizations, and I have listed elsewhere some of the grievous positions they hold.

So that those who are capable of understanding, should spend that time explaining to others why they should abandon SSPX ecclesiology, theological principles in general because it leads to a loss of faith. A frankenstein type of Ecclesial situation, and many other grievous moral problems.

If however, you are not able to do such a thing, then yes you might best use your time attending to the sick and poor. It all depends, everyone contributes according to their time and ability. The foot cannot say to the head or hand, I have no need of you. Apologetics is essential, but not the only thing necessary to spread the faith. You also need the foot soldiers who tend to the sick and needy in their time of need. For sometimes that can do much more to convert them to the faith.

I have spoken to countless good friends of mine, and some of their parents have converted to Protestantism. You ask them why? They responded that when their husband or wife died, they were there for them. They helped in their financial distress, brought food and showed general hospitality... Comrade Bergoglio has learned this from the Protestants, if you fill up empty stomachs people will become more religious somehow... A Mexican boss I had a while ago, he converted to Protestantism to get his citizenship! His wife was protestant and that was a sine qua non proposition he must accept to get married. Just look at Jacob and Esau! Esau gave up his birth right for a bowl of lentils , I think under the right circumstances most people are so fleshly that they will give up their faith with the right incentives.

A good proper and pure intention, does not change reality. It just merely reduces our guilt if the deed we committed was gravely sinful etc... So if someone who attends the N.O. mass thinks that this is the sacrifice of Cavalry has good proper intention etc... The N.O. mass is objectively mortally sinful to attend, if one is aware of its deviation of the faith. Yet, in order to commit a mortal sin, you can't do it by accident so that those who are truly operating under good faith are not mortally sinning.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions... This is what St. John Chrysostom and many other similar Father's have argued before. Actual deeds, and a good intention are two total different things. A good intent can lead to good moral acts/deeds. So it is not in any way bad, but it is not sufficient in itself to lead to salvation.

In my recent discussions with some sedevacantists, I've noticed an anti-SSPX sentiment. The negativity results not only due to disagreements regarding the crisis in the Church, but that the SSPX position, even though held in common error, is "schismatic."

I would be first to say that the SSPX approach is erroneous, and upon realizing this I acknowledged the vacancy of the Holy See. However, the fundamental stance of sedevacantists and SSPXers is to oppose the conciliar novelties, heresies, and errors, and uphold the one, true Faith whole and inviolate.

The R&R position is only materially schismatic, but they are not de facto schismatics. This can easily be seen, by any analysis of the Great Western Schism. Even some indult apologist recognize this sort of thing with respect to the SSPX, and these people have a more sane understanding of ecclesiology then the SSPX does. They too can be able to distinguish between an Orthodox heretic, and a SSPX priest + the faithful that attend their masses, who adhere to their theological positions.

Nevertheless, we must see that certain issues that have been pushed aside for a long time are coming back to resurgence and because of that we must remember that something is not always controversial, can become controversial at a later time. However, there are certain times when the question MUST be answered and it cannot be avoided any longer. We face several such situations, to accept the canonization of "Saints" Escriva, Teresa of Culcutta and some other similar Vatican II saints is not the same level as a Wojtyla and Roncalli. All my time during the SSPX, I never once rejected canonizations or accepted their theological arguments on the matter. However, I was never presented with a case as clear cut, as the one we have now. Now I am faced with a situation where I am asked to defect from the faith by accepting demons for public cult among Catholics. Now this is controversial, its that simple not by my own choice or making. Heretics are now on the offensive and Catholics have to pick if they are on the Lord's side or with the modernist Nouvelle Theologie.

Another problem is that the SSPX in the present, has stubbornly defended that the new Rites are valid. Before it could be argued they had a semi-agnostic position on the matter, but ever since the year 2000 and forward they have presented their thesis as Dogma to be believed by the faithful. So they are the ones that are causing the strife, because they are now starting to replace the magisterium. There are more indults now then there are independent masses, and the question now starts becoming a REAL valid one. There are so many examples I can go over as to why, something that was controversial but simply the time table was moved and ignored on the matter. However, they are now questions that all Catholics have to choose and pick sides. These matters can't simply be put off, the longer this goes on the more pressing certain issues become.

Take for example how for many years many sedevacantists argued that because the anti-Pope is not the Bishop of Rome, ergo he cannot be the true Pope. I remember being young, and hearing this sort of argument thinking to myself that this is theologically unsound. We know with certainty now that this argument was false, but it was not the only argument on the table. Sometimes people multiply arguments to see what sticks, but with time and enough reflection you can be able to see what was true and what was rash judgement. What is undoubtedly true, with the election of Comrade Bergoglio is that the Vatican II heads were indeed apostate anti-Popes. Since the faith of Bergoglio is the same faith that the previous claimants had, if he is anathema then the others follow too.

A good proper and pure intention, does not change reality. It just merely reduces our guilt if the deed we committed was gravely sinful etc...

The act of naming the pope in the canon is a good act, simplicitur.

A material error of fact does not and cannot make an act morally bad, objectively or subjectively. A mistake cannot affect the moral character of an act.

There's a failure of logic, or worse, a failure of basic philosophy, behind the Sanborn/Cekada arguments. That much is manifest. As I keep saying, on their analysis a man who falls off a cliff is a "material suicide." It isn't even sophisticated enough to be called a sophism. It's just school-boy nonsense. (And if you're curious, yes, I am amazed that men with their experience as thinkers and controversialists can make such a blunder, but there it is.) I repeat, a mistake of fact cannot affect the moral character of an act. I would be surprised if any instructed 15 year old Catholic is confused on this point.

Of course, Fr. Cekada, with whom I have exchanged plenty of words on this point right here, always ignores this distinction and audaciously leaps straight to a logically unreachable next step, viz. that "presence implies consent". Of course it does, as a general rule. We consent to the good act that the priest places. The entire debate is about whether his act is a good act. Abusing the terms "subjective" and "objective" is not going to convince anybody who actually can spot your trickery. It's pure propaganda.

In order to make the case that the act is morally deficient, objectively, you have to argue that the public status of the Nopes is legally established in some way. That is, that any man who names the Nope as pope is breaking the law. For example, you cite a law which states that non-Catholics cannot be named in the Canon even if they have not yet been condemned, have not joined a condemned sect, and good Catholics dispute about whether they are non-Catholics. Yes, no such law does or could exist, because it's manifestly impossible, intrinsically confused and confusing. There has never been a law like it. This is why people who argue that even if the priest is morally innocent, then his act is still objectively evil, at least hint at some moral failing in the priest (e.g. as you do above, where you argue that in order to hold the sedeplenist position is implicitly heretical). Which is really just a way of denying your own premise (that the priest may be innocent). There's precious little clear thinking on the anti-una-cum side of this debate, which probably explains why it's still only supported by a tiny minority of sede priests.

Once the case is made that the act is objectively evil, you have grounds for arguing that others who are aware of this ought to avoid such masses. But not before. And then you can use the term "subjective" to refer to the priest's good faith, which in such a case would consist of his not being aware that it is unlawful to name the Nope in the Canon. (But it's not unlawful, and nobody has ever presented a good argument why it would be.)

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Oct 20, 2014 8:13 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Re:

John Lane wrote:

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Myrna wrote:

Doesn't our proper and pure intention count for anything?

A good proper and pure intention, does not change reality. It just merely reduces our guilt if the deed we committed was gravely sinful etc...

The act of naming the pope in the canon is a good act, simplicitur.

A material error of fact does not and cannot make an act morally bad, objectively or subjectively. A mistake cannot affect the moral character of an act.

There's a failure of logic, or worse, a failure of basic philosophy, behind the Sanborn/Cekada arguments. That much is manifest. As I keep saying, on their analysis a man who falls off a cliff is a "material suicide." It isn't even sophisticated enough to be called a sophism. It's just school-boy nonsense. (And if you're curious, yes, I am amazed that men with their experience as thinkers and controversialists can make such a blunder, but there it is.) I repeat, a mistake of fact cannot affect the moral character of an act. I would be surprised if any instructed 15 year old Catholic is confused on this point.

Of course, Fr. Cekada, with whom I have exchanged plenty of words on this point right here, always ignores this distinction and audaciously leaps straight to a logically unreachable next step, viz. that "presence implies consent". Of course it does, as a general rule. We consent to the good act that the priest places. The entire debate is about whether his act is a good act. Abusing the terms "subjective" and "objective" is not going to convince anybody who actually can spot your trickery. It's pure propaganda.

In order to make the case that the act is morally deficient, objectively, you have to argue that the public status of the Nopes is legally established in some way. That is, that any man who names the Nope as pope is breaking the law. For example, you cite a law which states that non-Catholics cannot be named in the Canon even if they have not yet been condemned, have not joined a condemned sect, and good Catholics dispute about whether they are non-Catholics. Yes, no such law does or could exist, because it's manifestly impossible, intrinsically confused and confusing. There has never been a law like it. This is why people who argue that even if the priest is morally innocent, then his act is still objectively evil, at least hint at some moral failing in the priest (e.g. as you do above, where you argue that in order to hold the sedeplenist position is implicitly heretical). Which is really just a way of denying your own premise (that the priest may be innocent). There's precious little clear thinking on the anti-una-cum side of this debate, which probably explains why it's still only supported by a tiny minority of sede priests.

Once the case is made that the act is objectively evil, you have grounds for arguing that others who are aware of this ought to avoid such masses. But not before. And then you can use the term "subjective" to refer to the priest's good faith, which in such a case would consist of his not being aware that it is unlawful to name the Nope in the Canon. (But it's not unlawful, and nobody has ever presented a good argument why it would be.)

Yes, the reason why I do not attend an una cum is simply because it is done under duress. I don't understand the Cekada/Sanborn argument at all, mass attendance is very much a question of prudential judgement. Thus, in 5 years everything could change where I could in be in good conscience attend a una cum mass. At the moment, things have accelerated enough in the Conciliar Church to merit a change in my prudential judgement of the issue. If other's disagree, well I can't argue against you. As my position cannot in any way be binding to anyone else, but my own conscience. However, to simply dismiss my arguments just because its "my opinion" without any sort of serious considerations whether they are in fact true or not, is not prudent to say the least.

This is why, since the question has not been settled definitely by law. I cannot be forced to an una cum mass, simply because that is my only choice. Thus, the only reason I would attend it is because I am under a mental duress which only a Catholic can understand. The sort of mental anguish one suffers, as to whether one is obligated to attend x or y place, is difficult to explain unless someone has gone over it. Maybe to those who have had the grace to see this for a long time, are perfectly at peace. Under moral theology, I am definitely not breaking the law by not attending such a mass.

I certainly pray that the priest in the chapel, change their position so that I can really in good conscience attend it. Only time will tell... I think the parousia will come first, before +Fellay & Co. ever publicly make known the fact that has already happened, that the current claimants are Nopes. +Fellay is an a-priori anti-sedevacantist despite anything he says... It is clear, he sees it as a temptation along with so many other people that follow his school of thought. If they thought that SV'ism was just a theological opinion, then why would they call a licit opinion, a temptation? That just proves they are anti-SV'ist, I don't know for what reasons as only the Good Lord can know that, but that much we do know. Rorate Caeli, actually is a great example of +Fellay followers even though they are within the Conciliar structure. Their very recent remark about Fr. Calmel can show this http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-pope-is-just-vicar-on-footsteps-of.html#more line of thinking. Many inside the FSSP, actually listen to his conferences, and agree with everything the only difference with both of them is that they want to fight "within" the structure as opposed to outside, whereby as they see it is less effective. This difference, is mere politics if you ask me. They are in perfect moral harmony with each other's positions...

How can a position that was adopted by every single Doctor of the Church who spoke on the particular topic... Be the great "temptation" they make it out to be? There is a certain point where the person who demands too much evidence is sinning against the Holy spirit... This is the same sort of thing that I see with agnostics, who demand the most extraordinary stupidities ways in which God, can prove His existence to them. Like solving in the sky a current mathematical theorem that no has done... Or something equally ridiculous, it makes me laugh, but it is certainly no laughing matter. I laugh simply because otherwise very intelligent individuals, can sound so stupid! Truly the psalmist was right when he said, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God."

John a mistake would be, someone who is not aware that the Pope died and he simply did not get the update. These are mistakes... Like someone who accidentally says another name, then the one he intended. So lets say he says, "Benedicto" instead of "Francisco" because he was so used to saying it. These are mistakes, what you are suggesting is something else.

No these are men who are fully aware, well studied into every single detail of the apostasies of the Conciliar claimants... There is no accident here, its a bit more then just that. Now I agree, in simplicitur, it is a good act.

Now given modern technology, and the greater access to communications we cannot concede the same level of ignorance that someone lets say in the 4th century might have over what is happening in Rome. Where communication was slow etc... There could be errors in fact, but no, they completely understand everything. They did not watch the wrong video of Assisi, in fact their whole raison d'etre is based on their knowledge of this facts. Their whole priesthood is based upon the premises, which they completely clearly and have a deep intimate knowledge of. There is no accident or mistake here, it is 100% full knowledge of the facts.

Whether or not it is wrong or good, is another question. However, it seems to me you are suggesting a bit too much. Anyone that celebrates the indult, is doing it in some way as an act of resistance to the Novus Ordo implciitly/explicitly. For what other reason would their be, if the Novus Ordo was equal in dignity etc... It might be possible some old priest is just nostalgic and celebrates its once, and that is it. Okay I can concede something like that, but I am talking about someone who celebrates it for all Holy days of obligations. That is a much different case, and that is the case in fact with 99% of the indult masses out there.

John a mistake would be, someone who is not aware that the Pope died and he simply did not get the update. These are mistakes... Like someone who accidentally says another name, then the one he intended. So lets say he says, "Benedicto" instead of "Francisco" because he was so used to saying it. These are mistakes, what you are suggesting is something else.

Just define how it's not a mistake and we can discuss it.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

No these are men who are fully aware, well studied into every single detail of the apostasies of the Conciliar claimants... There is no accident here, its a bit more then just that. Now I agree, in simplicitur, it is a good act.

You directly, flatly, contradict yourself here, from one sentence to the next. First, you hint at something morally disordered, without saying what it is, then you say that the act is a good act. It's either one or the other. If it's a good act, that's because there's nothing wrong with it except for a material error, a mistake of fact, a blunder. If it's "something more than a mistake" then there is some moral disorder present. But you don't say what. And in any case, you cannot have it both ways. It's one, or it's the other.

Don't feel bad. Every single attempt ever made to outlaw "una cum" Masses manifests the same utterly unclear thinking as you demonstrate here.

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Editionn. An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.n. A misconception or misunderstanding.transitive v. To understand wrongly; misinterpret: mistook my politeness for friendliness.transitive v. To recognize or identify incorrectly: He mistook her for her sister.intransitive v. To make a mistake; err.

No, I just repeated and agree with what you said. I did not contradict myself, I attempted to make clear that it is not a mistake, but a serious theological error which can lead souls to hell. That in it of itself, it is a good thing for a priest to include the name of the Pope in the canon and the local Bishop. It is a-priori a necessity (it is a command, but only PRESUMING that they are Catholic), it is presumed that such a thing is of its own accord good. The very same thing, one first has to accept these men before they can be rejected. It is simply the Catholic thing to do (there has to be serious evidence that would make someone not accept these men, which of course we do have)... Now what about the majority of priests (in Rome) who accepted the claim of anti-Pope Felix II, instead of Liberius or any other case in history. They simply made their best judgement on the matter, and acted accordingly. So circumstances change what they will end up doing, who they end up mentioning in the canon. Just like the priest who stops mentioning the name of Nestorius in the canon, he did it after he was aware of the facts. His duty is to mention the name of the Bishop where he receives his mandate from, and the Pope. This command only binds if they are indeed Catholic, as soon as one is aware of the fact that they are indeed not Catholic, then the priest should not mention their names. Since news generally traveled slowly before, one could be able to presume ignorance on the part of many priests. Now I know that the Eastern's made it mandatory to say the name out loud so that the Catholics could know whether or not it was a Catholic or schismatic mass, and they did this with good reason so that there would be no confusion. If he errs, its not mortally sinful... But if a priest, even after knowing that Nestorius is preaching heresy still mentions him in the name of the Canon. Now this is a whole different issue, he either doubts that the story is true (which if this is the case, then its not that bad all he has to do is verify the facts) or he accepts it is indeed possible to be in communion with known manifest public heretics (bad news)... Now, the heresies that the Vatican II anti-Popes preached are worse then the heresies of Nestorius.

Vatican I studied the issued and said that all the previous supposed "heretical" popes were not Heretics. Yet the SSPX, will still try to in vain look for history to look for someone. This matter has been settled definitively already, yet people somehow still bring up theologians who have indeed been proven to have erred.

I am not outlawing it (mass attendance), no one is compelled to attend it, that is all I am saying. I am simply recoursing to my Catholic right, and good moral theologians give excellent advice as to what constitutes the precept of mass attendance. Its not mandatory to attend even the funeral/wedding of a non-Catholic friend, the Church gives you the permission (so that your conscience can be clear, of course presuming you do not participate). The Church does not order you to do such things, for it is impossible to mandate such a thing. I am sure that you apply this principle even among different SSPX priest, so that one that might be really anti-sedevacantist preaching it dogmatically you would then have the right not to have your children listen to the sermon, maybe not even go to mass. Maybe only going to masses where there is no sermon etc... The point is that you would do something to remedy the problem of keeping the faith, and getting the sacraments. Now please don't think I am drawing an analogy of this for the una cum, it is an independent observation I am making, as to the mind of the Church with respect to such matters. Things have changed, and in a few years we might not even have to debate the issue as it will become manifestly clearer.

You say that it is material error, a mistake of fact, a blunder... This is where I disagree, because you are supposing they are totally ignorant of the claimants. When I have already proven that they are aware of these facts, and not even you dispute this.

1) Mistake of fact = incorrect data. So a North Korean bishop who was underground, and has been in prison for 2 decades. He finally gets out, he was not aware of the new Pope, or if the same one is still reigning. So he celebrates mass, under whoever he thinks is still alive. If he celebrates it under someone who is already dead, this is indeed a mistake of fact. If I say that China is inside of India, this is a mistake of fact. Anyone can easily correct my mistake by pointing out a globe. Theological error != (does not equal) mistake of fact, this is what I have been trying to point out. You keep using the words interchangeably mistake of fact, error, blunder etc... A simple misunderstanding is not what is at play here, they are more then well aware of the facts on both sides of the issue. Despite this, they consistently teach the contrary this is why I say it cannot be a simple error. My bad for not being clearer on this issue, I presume too much sometimes from my audience.

This might apply to the North Korean priest, who has been underground who literally has no way of knowing anything. Maybe even to some people who live in countries that are relatively speaking on the dark for most of these issues... No, the SSPX priest receive monthly newsletters, they received training in the seminary regarding the issues which you say is a "mistake" and a "blunder." They have their own magazine circulation, they keep up with current events of the state of the Church and the local diocese. They tend to be pretty educated about these issues, and well aware of what each side argues. Mistake presumes, that there is no sort of culpable ignorance or it was done by accident (which I have already argued is not the case). Just look at the above standard dictionary definitions, and anyone can see that I am correct regarding your abuse of language. Their error is a serious theological error, that especially now is leading souls to hell. These issues might have been theological theoretical debates, but now they are realities. Before what I would do is dispute the fact (deny, deny, deny), that it could never happen that Wojtyla be canonized. Now it has happened, I was wrong its that simple. I misunderstood because I presumed that the SSPX was quoting St. Thomas and other theologians about resisting a Roman Pontiff, but it turns out it was out of context. Okay, so after I learn about these things I then gladly change my positions accordingly, because everything that I was arguing was indeed a misunderstanding. I however, did not have the benefit of 7 years of seminary, and on top of that having this be my full time job. The faithful can be excused (the guilt lessened), then lets say someone whose very duty is to know these things.

The sedeplenist position as it currently stands from the Neo-SSPX/indult is going to send souls to hell. Maybe not universally all of them, but one soul is too many in my eyes. The reality is that it is going to lead otherwise good willed people to the destruction of true Catholicism, to work against truth and defend error. Those in the indult, even without their knowing it, they are working for an anti-Christ organization. That is objectively speaking the reality of the matter, now they might not all be personally culpable, but at as time goes on to keep ignoring the issue can indeed be a sign of bad will, which in certain cases can lead to the sin of despair/sin against the Holy spirit and several other spiritual maladies.

Where people go to mass, is ultimately a judgement each has to come to terms with for their own families/soul. If some are more aware about certain things, then they will be held more accountable then those who are operating under good faith. I hope I clarified things, if not please let me know where I was unclear.

Jorge, I can't read all that you write, which is a problem in itself. Perhaps you could simplify the case and tell me what law you are relying upon? Cite the canon, or the liturgical law, that forbids the mention of a non-condemned heretic.

Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:21 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

John Lane wrote:

Jorge, I can't read all that you write, which is a problem in itself. Perhaps you could simplify the case and tell me what law you are relying upon? Cite the canon, or the liturgical law, that forbids the mention of a non-condemned heretic.

You can take your time, as this issue is pretty important. I don't care if it takes you a year to answer this. No need to feel rushed, as I know you are pretty busy and I totally understand.

I tried to cite examples of what is a mistake and what is not a mistake. So that someone who reads what I wrote can be able to see that the current SSPX position, is not a mistake/error/blunder or whatever similar synonym you choose. I hope that I was able to convince someone as to what a real mistake of fact is and what it is not.

I first have to see what principle is the underlying problem for your current judgments. Lets go back to some hypothetical case, which by the way did happen historically.

What do you think the seriousness of the crime is for the priest, who continues to cite Nestorius as his ordinary Bishop, in the canon of the mass. Despite being aware that he is preaching against the doctrine of the Theotokos? Note: I am not saying what is the crime for the faithful, but the individual priest. Who despite being shown beyond a reasonable doubt, that Nestorius is a heretic. Remember, that back then it took several months, nay sometimes years to condemn a known heretic. This was not because of a lack of wanting to condemn error, but simply because news traveled pretty slow and in addition to that, the Church made everything possible to make the heretic understand his errors plus gave him time to repent. So Nestorius has not been condemned by an Ecumenical Council yet... You cannot then expect the faithful, to be compelled under pain of mortal sin to attend the mass of that priest, even if he is not himself preaching against the Theotokos. If they err, or are not aware is not what is stake here. You very well know that the obligation to hear mass, is one that has many conditionals attached to it. It is only obligatory, under certain circumstances. If you are sick, too far, priest lives with a concubine publicly and many other things would give the Catholic the right not to attend.

The reason why I haven't been able to cite my authorities yet, is merely a technical problem at the moment. Rest assured I am trying my best to make it very easy for me in the future to give my references, not just for this particular case, but many others. In due time, I will cite my cases and make available for all the texts that I currently have/using (those whose copyright has expired of course).

The truth is that I am being compelled to attend an una cum or suffer eternal damnation. For if you are arguing that this is not the case, then you agree with me and I see no need to debate this issue any further. If this is not duress, then I really don't know what could constitute as duress. I simply choose my Catholic right, not to attend if that is my only choice. For currently I am not in danger of death, and I have never had better health in my life. If I was near death, then yes even I would gladly receive the Blessed sacrament from any valid priest who is willing to give it to me, including the Orthodox, indult or any independent priest. Now for other sacraments, that is not my issue as I have made that clear. Whether the priest would even be willing to give me the sacraments, after being made aware of my stance is another issue. However, there would be no fault of my own in that regard. I am sure that they would not refuse the sacraments, but this might become an issue or mandate in the SSPX (in the near future). Already many people in the resistance all over the world are denied the sacraments, if you deny this then I don't know what to tell you. I have spoken to first hand witnesses, seen videos, pamphlets that proves that they in fact do this. Maybe not universally in all the SSPX mass centers, but if they do this to other sedeplenists what would they do to a sedevacantist? This is going to be especially true, once I start being more public about my stance (issuing DVD's to the priest etc...). Right now I am keeping general silence (anyone I have spoken to in private knows already, my point is I don't carry a shirt and big sign), because I need to make my case, for it serves little profit to tell people without giving them a good reason as to why their position is wrong/dangerous currently.

What if no one cares, or does anything even after I give them the information is not my problem. If they have eyes to see, let them see, if they have ears to hear, let them hear. My problem is that it took me a long time to see things, because there was no one to show me. Having been so convicted that my position was true, I can then be able to understand very much what were the things that kept me inside sedeplenism. Since I have also spoken to so many of the faithful and generally spent much of my time talking to the simple of faith. I also deeply understand their position, because I have spoken to some of the best priest that have defended it. I can also understand what is it that is keeping them there, I am sure that once it is explained to them at their level with patience. Slowly, but surely they will change their minds or greatly modify their sedeplenism to insure that no false prophets/wolves will ever be a danger to their faith. Now the only thing they will need to worry about is keeping the commandments, and have as their guide the principles of St. Thomas to lead them out of the darkness of error and to lead them back again to the path of truth & the fullness of Catholic truth.

Jorge, my only interest in this subject is to analyse and answer the assertion that to assist at such a mass is wrong.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

What do you think the seriousness of the crime is for the priest, who continues to cite Nestorius as his ordinary Bishop, in the canon of the mass. Despite being aware that he is preaching against the doctrine of the Theotokos?

To be a crime at all, it would have to be against the law. But it wasn't against the law then, and it isn't against the law now. If you disagree, then cite the law. Fr. Crekada cannot do so. Bishop Sanborn cannot do so. If you can, you'll have their gratitude, I'm sure!

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:29 am

Recusant

Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 12:28 pmPosts: 284

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

From John Daly's, Heresy in History:

"Another historical example has been invoked in favour of the position of those who condemn all misguided traditionalists as heretics or schismatics: the case of St Hypathius. This Bythinian monk insisted on omitting the name of the heretic Nestorius from the diptychs from the moment when he began to preach his heresy, denying the unity of person in Our Divine Lord. His ordinary, Eulalius, while refusing the heresy of Nestorius, rebuked the holy monk Hypathius for withdrawing from communion with their Nestorius, who was their patriarch, before the judgment of a council. Hypathius replied: "...I cannot insert his name in the Canon of the Mass because a heresiarch is not worthy of the title of pastor in the Church; do what you will with me, I am ready to suffer anything, and nothing will make me change my behaviour." (Petits Bollandistes, 17th June)

But in fact this case merely illustrates what all sedevacantists are agreed upon: given a case in which one clearly sees, in all prudence, that one is dealing with a heretic, one must at once withdraw from communion with him. That is of course the correct position to hold with regard to Karol Wojtyla and many others in our days.

But when some sedevacantists withdraw from communion with other sedevacantists on the grounds that the latter remain in communion not with Karol Wojtyla but with certain traditional clergy or laity that the first group consider heretics...they are quite mistaken to quote the case of St Hypathius in their favour. For Hypathius, though he withdrew from communion with Nestorius, clearly did not withdraw from communion with Eulalius, who, though orthodox, mistakenly thought it right to remain provisionally in communion with Nestorius until the Church should have formally pronounced him a heretic.

Hence those who today condemn those of us who reject John-Paul II without rejecting misguided traditionalists ought by the same token to condemn St Hypathius whose example we follow. They ought to hold that he should never have been considered a saint after such a disgraceful example of liberalism and of schismatic dispositions!

And curiously enough, one sedevacantist of those who feel that they are more faithful to the Church the more people they consider excommunicated in our days, has even reached that extreme, for when the example of St Hypathius was quoted to him he replied that Hypathius must have repented of the incident to have been considered a saint by the Church. In other words he made the saint's chief glory into an act of shame which he spontaneously compared with the youthful indiscretions committed by St Augustine before his conversion!"

Apparently, Eulalius, who was orthodox, did not have a problem with including Nestorius' name in the canon.

Fri Oct 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

And then there's this canon from the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Fourth Council of Constantinople): “No layman, monk, or cleric shall, previous to an examination and conciliar decision, leave the jurisdiction of his own patriarch, though he may pretend to know that the latter is guilty of a grave crime; nor shall he omit his name in the liturgy. The same rule is to be observed also by bishops and priests toward their patriarch. Whoever is found to act contrary to this decision of the holy council, shall, if a bishop or cleric, be suspended; if a monk or layman, excommunicated.”

I pointed this out seven years ago and the reply from Fr. Cekada and Co. is...

As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does? Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch's name during the divine mysteries or offices.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.

Jorge, my only interest in this subject is to analyse and answer the assertion that to assist at such a mass is wrong.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

What do you think the seriousness of the crime is for the priest, who continues to cite Nestorius as his ordinary Bishop, in the canon of the mass. Despite being aware that he is preaching against the doctrine of the Theotokos?

To be a crime at all, it would have to be against the law. But it wasn't against the law then, and it isn't against the law now. If you disagree, then cite the law. Fr. Crekada cannot do so. Bishop Sanborn cannot do so. If you can, you'll have their gratitude, I'm sure!

Take my case for example, the SSPX chapel is just a 15 minute walk away from my house. If there was no other mass, available (which by the way did happen as the priest left 7 weeks recently and will happen quite often in the future) such as an undoubtedly good Sedevacantist mass center. Would I be violating the mandate of the Church with respect to mass attendance (as an obligation to keep Holy the Sabbath day), by not attending?What if I had children, and decided not to take them (this would even be worse as it is not just me, but other souls)? Would you say I would suffer eternal damnation, because I refuse to attend the mass where a notorious heretic is mentioned.

Given the difference between back then and now, where the Vatican II sect is so openly protestant that even atheist/agnostics/liberals recognize this. The errors of the SSPX, are finally reaching their full culmination and they are starting to have the effects that many sedevacantist have decried before. Do not worry error sometimes takes quite a bit to take its full effect, but at some point you will have to pay the piper. For what good is it to attend the SSPX mass, when you confess frequently with other laymen, because of the position you hold... Now there is no debate among anyone, that indeed their heresies are so overt that no one indeed disputes the claim anymore. You can't sugar coat the sort of stuff that is going on at the moment, whereas before one could possibly distort/defend to a limited extent some of the actions of the Conciliar claimants. However, their attack on Catholic morals/doctrine is so universal in scope, so notorious that it is truly mind boggling.

If you decide to attend, that is your choice you have developed in your conscience. I cannot defend it in good conscience, but I cannot agree with Fr. Cekada saying that it is an objective mortal sin. So long as the person does it for real serious reasons, and might feel compelled (forced under pain of mortal sin to attend). Especially if the priest is someone who is in reality resisting the errors of the said claimants, but for whatever crazy reason still thinks the man still retains his office. The individual who does decide to attend, has to understand that he has a serious obligation to not be indifferent etc... If the priest has a real bad case of anti-sedevacantism and other problems, in the case of children it might be a good idea not to hear the sermon. There has to be some sort of protection mechanism that the individual has to build for himself/family, so as not to become indifferent about their theological position.

I could see how one could attend once a year, if you have no other choice available to fulfill your easter duty. I would not argue that it would be necessary under pain of sin, but it certainly could be argued. Attending very infrequently, and doing it on a weekly basis or even daily is a total different case.

You did not answer the original question, I was referring to crime as a sin, and not lets say something punishable necessarily by law. There are plenty of things that are not covered under human law, that are pretty serious and you can't expect everything to be covered under Church law either. This particular topic is covered under law, but my point is that a little common sense goes a long way also.

All of us unanimously agree, that the true Catholic position and theological position for everything we stand for is that of the tradition of the Church as taught by the Father's, doctor's and theologians. Is that you cannot be in communion with heretics, that simple. Now Church law as the article of John Daly shows http://www.sedevacantist.com/heresyhistory.html, is pretty lenient on this matter and thankfully so. It really is for the benefit of the laity/clergy, and it is very lenient because it really tries to its very best, to charitably give heretics the greatest possible chance of returning to the unity of the Church. We know that they are already self-condemned by their own judgment. However, for legal reasons and how the faithful are to be treated to those who communicate with such individuals (the Church is even more lenient!). That doesn't however mean that St. Hypathius and other confessors who did do the right thing, were anathematized or condemned by the Church for doing what they did. Which was refuse communion with the original heretic in question... Now of course, the same cannot of course be said of those who say you lose membership in the Church because you are in communion with someone of the SSPX or who holds a similar position.

I would simply repeat the quote of St. Hypathius, and just change it a bit by saying, non possumus to me personally attending an una cum. Do what you want with me, but I will not excepting cases of me in a near death scenario. What other's choose to do and attend una cum to their heart's content is beyond me. I would say it is not sufficient grounds for me to break communion with those who do, that would be absurd, but at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself, the wisdom of that choice (plus long term consequences), especially to those who suffer no ignorance on the matter. I am willing to be extremely lax to 99% of the faithful, but those that are more knowledgeable will definitely have more to respond at the last day of judgment. Each person ultimately has to at the end of the day answer to God, and with him there is no lying or excuses. If people try to find ways to legally excuse themselves, when they are fully aware that the decision is not the best one, and at best legally spurious. When you are stuck in a crisis much greater then that of any previous heresies/schism's in the history of the Church and you decide to operate under un-chartered waters as opposed to simply the safe opinion. The strictly safe opinion and the most logical one, is to simply not attend the mass of a priest who has serious errors and professes communion with the most wicked apostates in all of Church history combined. Look at the example of the Saints, they never personally took the oath, professed communion with public heretics etc... Not attending their mass does not equal breaking communion with them, it just means we cannot reconcile the act they commit with the purity of the faith. The Saints because of their super abundant charity they decided, to really try to gain back the heretic by not breaking communion with him. To show him to the light of the truth, as we all should do, but nevertheless they always followed the correct, true position and that is ultimately what I am doing no one could condemn me/others for doing so. If others decide to do something else, well I cannot recommend it, but I certainly hope/pray that God might enlighten you on the matter. We live in difficult dark times, so yes lets be charitable and lax to our fellow Catholics, but lets follow the example of the Saints and do the right thing personally, not just the minimally Catholic thing or push the boundaries of what is tolerated by the Church.

Daly cited More as receiving communion from a priest who took the oath, well it was pretty obvious the man was about to be executed, necessity knows no law and in his case its even more extreme, because an entire country did historically go into schism (more extreme then this case, is difficult to find except our modern age). That all of those cases were mostly dealing with topics that were not officially judged by the Church, yet, so we have 2000 years of no excuses in our modern age + pretty much free access to ALL church documents, extremely high literacy rates, document translations in all modern languages of these Church documents, instant communication/video/audio/text (near 0 cost) etc... We are so much more guilty then all previous heretics put together if we decide to go against the Church and her doctrines. Pretty much every topic you can think of, has been covered by previous anathemas. Another one was St. Bellarmine calling Michel de Bay, "prudent, pious, erudite and humble." There is nothing wrong with extolling the natural virtues that a fellow man might have, especially if his errors are things that have not been previously anathematized. Now lets think of how God sees Michel de Bay, and what he would be paying in purgatory if indeed he was saved for the heresies and the spiritual children which he engendered...

To sum it up, the Church has to be lenient as to what external membership in the Church is. This is quite obvious for legal reasons such as the administration of the sacraments, avoiding the individual (last resort), etc... Only those who really are so public and continuously do not recant, only they are denied these grace giving sacraments for good reasons, even after several years in certain cases of being rebuked/silenced etc... Do not confuse the leniency of the Church, as a way to excuse laxity and following improbable opinions which have little support in history. You follow the safest opinion, and that is what we should do, what other people do matters little. The Saints had strong convictions, but great charity and this is the same position we must adopt in these modern times. We must condemn error, but be as lenient as possible to particular individuals. I condemn the main men of the SSPX who propogate the more serious errors, not the people who follow them. Condemn the root of the cause, instead of attempting to anathematize innocent victims of misguided principles.

You did not answer the original question, I was referring to crime as a sin, and not lets say something punishable necessarily by law. There are plenty of things that are not covered under human law, that are pretty serious and you can't expect everything to be covered under Church law either. This particular topic is covered under law, but my point is that a little common sense goes a long way also.

I'm pretty disgusted by your whole approach to serious matters. There's no law to the effect that you need. Indeed, the only law we can find is EXACTLY to the contrary. Nothing is a sin unless it violates a law. Nothing is a crime unless it is a sin, and specifically, the violation of a law which protects the common good (i.e. a crime is an assault upon the social order).

So, the priest who mentions in the Canon the name of the man whom all of the ordinaries regard as pope, is performing a lawful and indeed virtuous act. All of your circuitous blather doesn't make any difference to this - it just proves that you'd rather make up your own law and theology than go and sit at the feet of the doctors and learn in all humility. Sorry, but that's how it is. You prove it by citing no authorities and instead writing hundreds of your own words (which happen often to be obviously wrong, but that's beside the point).

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Oct 26, 2014 3:46 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Take my case for example, the SSPX chapel is just a 15 minute walk away from my house. If there was no other mass, available (which by the way did happen as the priest left 7 weeks recently and will happen quite often in the future) such as an undoubtedly good Sedevacantist mass center. Would I be violating the mandate of the Church with respect to mass attendance (as an obligation to keep Holy the Sabbath day), by not attending?

Jorge, I'll address this purely out of concern for you, even though it doesn't touch on the question we're actually discussing.

The obligation to assist at Holy Mass on Sundays and Holy days is a grave obligation, however the theologians say that any "moderately grave inconvenience" excuses. "Moderately grave" is a technical classification and you'll need to consult theological manuals to get your head around it, but in practice I have no doubt that the distress (resulting, objectively, from the situation in the Church since Vatican II, even if as I think the concrete distress itself is a result of error and confusion in your own mind) you would feel at being present at an "una cum" mass would constitute a moderately grave inconvenience, and thus excuse you from the obligation. I emphasise that the excuse is based upon objective factors, not merely subjective, but because the situation is so objectively confused, it is unreasonable to expect all to be clear upon the necessary principles and facts, and judgements arising from those principles and facts.

So much for the law. Now, given the fact that Holy Mass has infinite value, that the graces available from assisting at it are immeasurable, and that the mass itself is the very heart and centre of the life of the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, so that to assist at mass is to live the life of the Church, to fulfil one's vocation as a Christian, to exercise the priesthood which is intrinsic to the character of baptism imprinted upon your soul; in a word, given that we are talking about whether to be present at Calvary or not, who would omit to do so unless it were truly impossible?

_________________In Christ our King.

Mon Oct 27, 2014 7:14 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

John the reason why I asked directly, is so you can answer the question. You did not answer, whether it was objectively mortally sinful for me to miss mass, given that I have already explained it is just a 15 minute brisk walk away from me. So distance is not the issue, and my health is not an issue either.

Yes, or no. If you say that it is, please explain why. If no, likewise.

You just gave me an explanation as to the nature of the mass, that which we both agree. The graces are very great, but I am sorry I cannot in good conscience assist unless my life was in danger, or I am about to be on the operating table etc... What you are advocating is to consistently attend it, every single week, of every single year this is totally different then once in a while. I know you might not have an actual SV'ist chapel nearby, so this issue is very much a geography related issue. I know for you that your theology is not dependent upon your geography, but it can surely skew the balance in favor of a disputed opinion.

No the question is directly related, for it makes all the difference whether we agree or not. If you say no, then we are of the same mind and therefore it is pointless to discuss. If you say yes, then this is ultimately where we disagree on the issue.

Mass attendance is grave, this is precisely why it is important where you attend.

You did not answer the original question, I was referring to crime as a sin, and not lets say something punishable necessarily by law. There are plenty of things that are not covered under human law, that are pretty serious and you can't expect everything to be covered under Church law either. This particular topic is covered under law, but my point is that a little common sense goes a long way also.

I'm pretty disgusted by your whole approach to serious matters. There's no law to the effect that you need. Indeed, the only law we can find is EXACTLY to the contrary. Nothing is a sin unless it violates a law. Nothing is a crime unless it is a sin, and specifically, the violation of a law which protects the common good (i.e. a crime is an assault upon the social order).

So, the priest who mentions in the Canon the name of the man whom all of the ordinaries regard as pope, is performing a lawful and indeed virtuous act. All of your circuitous blather doesn't make any difference to this - it just proves that you'd rather make up your own law and theology than go and sit at the feet of the doctors and learn in all humility. Sorry, but that's how it is. You prove it by citing no authorities and instead writing hundreds of your own words (which happen often to be obviously wrong, but that's beside the point).

John I have made it ABSOLUTELY clear, that I will be citing plenty of authorities. The problem is a technical one, so don't go badgering somehow that I somehow rely on my "opinions." I detest my own opinions, but sometimes simple common sense can go a long way. So my blathering, was to set forth some of the principles and to help set the discussion of what I see are the problems in your position, and what is it that I am trying to say. It is not what will settle the matter, as I have already made that clear.

I have not OCR'ed many of the texts that I have, and since they are really high quality scans. It can become quite tedious for me, to write it by hand. I want to be able to have the text so I can give my own commentary in color etc... This is just a technical issue, not that I am cowering away from the matter at hand. Dear patience please, as I am also in the process of doing some job hunting/interviews.

These indeed ARE really grave issues, precisely why I am going over them. I would say that no other issue compares to the importance of this one issue... I am not making the same type of arguments as Fr. Cekada, or Bishop Sanborn.

Quote:

Nothing is a sin unless it violates a law. Nothing is a crime unless it is a sin

The crime is that it leads to heresy in this case, for it leads the faithful to believe that it is indeed a good thing to be in communion with heretics. You need to be so intelligent to be able to make the proper distinctions, in order to preserve the faith as a sedeplenist. This is an extremely powerful burden to put on the faithful this is why it would not be true, especially post-Bergoglio canonizations to recommend to the faithful to attend an una cum. Do you deny that the SSPX is not in communion with the current claimants? I am not saying this is true spiritually (or factually), for they have two different religions that much is clear. I am simply taking their own word for it, they profess to be in communion with him even outside of the mass. The fact that they so openly profess communion with him leads especially those of simple faith, to follow with an indult type of mentality which was something that was created by the mind of +Lefebvre. The first May protocol that he signed was de facto, the FSSP as we currently know it. He might have changed his mind, but if you talk to Fr. Berg & Co. they will tell you that they just agreed with the first deal that +Lefebvre made. Not that me being in communion with them (that is the SSPX), would make me a heretic or a schismatic. Here is the principle I am operating under, even if someone as a sedevacantist manages not to be indifferent because he knows better, what about those who do not know better because they have not fortified their faith enough with the mind of the Church. The main reason why they believe and hold the positions they do, is because of the consistent week to week preaching they hear on these matters.

This point is illustrated in Exodus where it says that if anyone digs a well and opens the pit and does not cover it, and if their neighbor's ox comes along and falls into the pit, the person who opened the pit is held accountable for its restitution. That person who instills doubt about those things which belong to faith opens a pit; he does not cover the pit who does not resolve the doubt, even though he himself possesses sound and clear understanding and is not deceived. Nonetheless the other person who does not possess such clear understanding is truly deceived, and so that man who instilled the doubt is held accountable for restitution, since it was through him that the other man fell into the pit. This is precisely what you are doing John, there are many who will not have the intelligence/knowledge to be able to continue to attend an una cum without being affected in the long term. For chances are if you don't have a SV'ist chapel anywhere near you, it is unlikely you will get one anytime soon. So then you are left to attend exclusively, or almost exclusively this particular mass.

Then why is it that our Saint Hypathius, refused to mention his name in the canon. Even saying, "do with me what you will." In other words, I am willing to die for this "unsinful" opinion of mine. The fact that you fail to see how serious other priests have taken this issue before, is beyond me.

Your attitude is that it matters at worse, little, yet historically every single time any priest has faced such a notorious heretical Bishop the best of them have refused to mention him, even before a legal declaration. In your eyes without some official "pronouncement" Catholics will simply wait until they die, before they make any assent of faith to any sort of position. This is beyond preposterous, and it is stupid. No that is absolute non-sense, for YOU KNOW in reality it is 200% impossible to have a legal declaration by the Church at the current moment. Excepting Divine intervention, we will not have some sort of declaration from a reasonable point within my life time much less yours (since I am pretty relatively young). I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, but I am merely making external objective observations of the reality. My assumptions are reasonable, and correlate with the current situation. No, instead you base your theology and decisions, on impossibilities. So its quite convenient to say something of that sort, that nothing can bind us, no one has said that such positions are excommunicated etc... Wait, I think you are waiting for that retired Bishop on that lonely island to make a legal declaration of all of these issues? Is that it John, really?

Reminds me very much of those who say incredible things like, in 5 billion years the sun will burn out and explode. Well what if I said it was 20 billion years, how will we ever know the proof of either assertion? When you cite numbers that approach infinity, and assertions that are unprovable given your premises, its the perfect argument. No one can prove you wrong, given your specific set of premises.

Main premise:1) The Church has not ruled on the matter. Ergo, be quiet.

Anything I say after this, will not matter. That is going to be your objection to everything...

When anyone examines these assumptions you have made. That the Church has not ruled on the matter, and therefore una cum is okay. That is pretty much the whole argument... No sort of prudential judgment, that at some point it is not going to be okay. In certain cases its not okay etc... No its just a flat out, its okay universally, because its just a simply a mistake of fact. Sure, I agree with you that it would be ideal, good and awesome that the Church rule on these matters officially. The SSPX has been arguing that for the past 50 years, and where has that taken them? They are still "waiting" and they will never stop waiting. Some point the impatience grows, and they will go back with the mother Hen, you can see this from +Fellay in his comments with sedevacantism and the necessity of returning to "Eternal Rome." Even after anti-Paul VI is canonized, they will continue to cite their mantra's and false positions. Nothing can convince those who proof-text for they don't care about the mind of the Church. To them its a matter of what +Lefebvre said, and no amount of theological reasoning can change the mind of a man who is in that state of mind.

John the reason why I asked directly, is so you can answer the question. You did not answer, whether it was objectively mortally sinful for me to miss mass, given that I have already explained it is just a 15 minute brisk walk away from me. So distance is not the issue, and my health is not an issue either.

Yes, or no. If you say that it is, please explain why. If no, likewise.

We must speak a different language. I answered your question, and explained my answer. Perhaps you can re-read it?

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

You just gave me an explanation as to the nature of the mass, that which we both agree. The graces are very great, but I am sorry I cannot in good conscience assist unless my life was in danger, or I am about to be on the operating table etc... What you are advocating is to consistently attend it, every single week, of every single year this is totally different then once in a while.

All of this illustrates the problem that I perceive with your thought processes. You have some vague notion that there's something deficient about an "una cum" mass. You cannot show what that deficiency is. But it informs your thought on the matter and leads you to various strange conclusions. For example, you write as if you were speaking of the mass of a schismatic, and as if one would be permitted to assist at such a mass in danger of death. Neither point is proved, by you, and neither is even really clear. It's all just implicit assumptions dressed in vagaries. Going to a mass offered by a Catholic priest "leads to heresy"? There's so much packed into your jumbled thoughts here that I don't know if anybody would have the time to disentangle it all.

Ask yourself this question: Do you think that the traditionalist clergy acknowledge Bergoglio's claim provisionally, subject to the judgement of the Church, or do you think they do so absolutely, whatever the Church may judge about his claim?

Jorge, you cannot commit a sin unless you breach a law. Until you get that much clear, you will never have peace.

I repeat, if there's something wrong with a mass in which a non-condemned heretic is named in the Canon, there must be some law governing the matter, a law which is being breached by the celebrant. You cannot say what that law is. Nobody can. I researched this thoroughly more than a decade ago and laid out all of the relevant principles, citing numerous authorities, including those opposed to my view. Nobody has ever touched the matter since. Fr. Cekada dodged it completely by putting out an article which was essentially sophistical. He did not touch the substantive questions which were richly explored in my article. I am entitled to believe - indeed, I am convinced completely - that he did not touch the questions of law because he realised that he has no case.

You think geography biases my view? I think the anti-una-cum position is a form of superstition. That is, it ascribes a disproportionate effect to an insufficient cause.

As somebody wise once commented about its originator, Guerard des Lauriers, his theory about the papacy was decidedly liberal compared with proper sedevacantism, and the anti-una-cum stance gave him a nice hard-line foil with which to blunt such criticisms. "We don't really say he isn't the pope, but by heck we won't soil ourselves by any kind of communion with him!" Don't ever think that the two positions aren't related. They came from the same mind, and the anti-una-cum stance was spread about by Guerardians, not sedevacantists. It wasn't a coincidence that the Guerardian Fr. Sanborn was publishing articles pushing it in 1991, whereas the non-Guerardian Fr. Cekada didn't adopt it until about 1999. To this day most sede clergy don't accept it. I think that's because they sense that it truly is a superstition.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 28, 2014 2:56 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

John I have made it ABSOLUTELY clear, that I will be citing plenty of authorities. The problem is a technical one, so don't go badgering somehow that I somehow rely on my "opinions." I detest my own opinions, but sometimes simple common sense can go a long way. So my blathering, was to set forth some of the principles and to help set the discussion of what I see are the problems in your position, and what is it that I am trying to say. It is not what will settle the matter, as I have already made that clear.

I have not OCR'ed many of the texts that I have, and since they are really high quality scans. It can become quite tedious for me, to write it by hand. I want to be able to have the text so I can give my own commentary in color etc... This is just a technical issue, not that I am cowering away from the matter at hand.

Either stop writing about it, or cite the texts. I don't need OCRs, I probably have the texts myself, and if I don't, I can go and get them.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Quote:

Nothing is a sin unless it violates a law. Nothing is a crime unless it is a sin

The crime is that it leads to heresy in this case, for it leads the faithful to believe that it is indeed a good thing to be in communion with heretics.

Even if this were true, how would it affect the question of whether you or I could go to mass? It wouldn't, at all.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Here is the principle I am operating under, even if someone as a sedevacantist manages not to be indifferent because he knows better, what about those who do not know better because they have not fortified their faith enough with the mind of the Church. The main reason why they believe and hold the positions they do, is because of the consistent week to week preaching they hear on these matters.

All utterly irrelevant to the question at issue, which is whether you or I can go to mass. You write about the matter as if you or I had some special office which obliged us to try and save the remnant faithful by some kind of act of supererogation by which we miss Holy Mass in order to bring into relief the importance of the pope problem. That is so perverted a view of everything that I don't know where to begin. It smells of pride, it sounds totally confused, and it inverts everything.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

This is precisely what you are doing John, there are many who will not have the intelligence/knowledge[/b] to be able to continue to attend an una cum without being affected in the long term. For chances are if you don't have a SV'ist chapel anywhere near you, it is unlikely you will get one anytime soon. So then you are left to attend exclusively, or almost exclusively this particular mass.[/color]

This is not religion, it's politics dressed as spirituality. I don't doubt your sincerity, but you have no idea how to address this issue.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Then why is it that our Saint Hypathius, refused to mention his name in the canon. Even saying, "do with me what you will." In other words, I am willing to die for this "unsinful" opinion of mine. The fact that you fail to see how serious other priests have taken this issue before, is beyond me.

Well, perhaps it's because I know about the subject? Why do you seem strangely unaware that hardly any sede priests agree with you on this? The ones who "take it seriously" (in your opinion) are the Guerardians. But even that's all a completely wrong-headed view of it. The reality is quite the contrary: the bulk of the sede clergy reject the Guerardian position precisely because they take the matter seriously, and don't buy novelties as means of scaring people away from their clear duties. Ask Bishop Pivarunas whether he thinks it would be a light matter for him to say to people "Stay away from the masses of those Catholic priests." I think he regards that as a very grave step to take, and because he's a responsible man, he is not about to take it. Internet priests, however, don't appear to feel the gravity of anything...

The reason that St. Hypathius took the stand that he did was because the law at the time forbad the mention of an excommunicate in the Canon, and all heretics were excommunicates. Read Benedict XIV, Ex quo. It's all there.

As I explained in my article:

Quote:

Pope Benedict XIV, in the bull Ex quo, by which he promulgated the restored liturgical book for the Greek Catholics, the Euchologion, has expounded many of the points of which we require knowledge in order to analyse this question. Pope Benedict, employing the work of St. Robert Bellarmine, firstly explains that there is no divine law governing the question of whether non-Catholics may be named in the Canon, so that we must consider instead what the law of the Church is in relation to the question.

“But among the Oriental peoples this practice of commemorating the king in the sacred liturgy is common, as may be seen in the Liturgies of the Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians and Syrians. But if it should be asked how it can be endured where it is certain that the kings for whom they pray and whom they commemorate in the liturgy are infidels, Ven. Card. Bellarmine would reply (as in fact he replied in the chapter quoted above[32]) that it is by no means forbidden by the nature of the object, as theologians say, to pray during Mass even for infidels since the sacrifice of the Cross has been offered for all men. And of course St. Thomas teaches that although St. Augustine wrote in his work de origine Animae that the sacrifice is offered only for those who are members of Christ, his statement must be understood to include both those who are already members of Christ and those who are able to become such (in 4. Sentent., dist. 12, quest. 2, art. 2, quest. 2, to the fourth). Therefore, the Cardinal adds that the whole question should be assessed in terms of what the Church has forbidden: ‘It is certain from the nature of the object that if the Church has not prohibited it, it is permissible to offer prayers for those men (i.e., the infidels).’ Although there is such a prohibition against the excommunicated and so against heretics and schismatics, there is none against infidels and these are not bound by excommunication. This is enough, he says, to allow commemoration of them during Mass and even the offering of the sacrifice for them in accordance with the evident tradition in this matter and with the apostolic constitution. ‘But someone may ask whether it is permissible if the king is an infidel as in Greece, where the Turk is ruler, and as in India, Japan and China where pagans rule, for priests there to offer prayers expressly for the king. I answer that I consider it permissible provided that the king is not excommunicated as are heretic kings, but is a pagan. For this tradition, this constitution, is apostolic, as I showed just above. To my knowledge there is no clear prohibition of this by the Church.’"[33]

Divine law, as St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Benedict XIV make clear, certainly does not prohibit non-Catholics to be prayed for by name during Holy Mass. Consequently the entire question must be discussed in terms of ecclesiastical law.

Now, St. Hypathius was keenly aware that the status of Nestorius was legitimately disputed, so that is why he had no problem with his ordinary, Eulalius, who didn't agree with him omitting Nestorius's name from the Diptychs. Both positions were lawful. Once the Church judged Nestorius, however, all were obliged to omit his name from the mass.

The law has since changed, and now there is no obligation to omit an ipso facto excommunicate's name from the Canon. So there can be no controversies such as could potentially have divided Eulalius and Hypathius.

You may not like or agree with the law, but that's neither here nor there.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Your attitude is that it matters at worse, little, yet historically every single time any priest has faced such a notorious heretical Bishop the best of them have refused to mention him, even before a legal declaration. In your eyes without some official "pronouncement" Catholics will simply wait until they die, before they make any assent of faith to any sort of position. This is beyond preposterous, and it is stupid. No that is absolute non-sense, for YOU KNOW in reality it is 200% impossible to have a legal declaration by the Church at the current moment. Excepting Divine intervention, we will not have some sort of declaration from a reasonable point within my life time much less yours (since I am pretty relatively young). I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, but I am merely making external objective observations of the reality. My assumptions are reasonable, and correlate with the current situation. No, instead you base your theology and decisions, on impossibilities. So its quite convenient to say something of that sort, that nothing can bind us, no one has said that such positions are excommunicated etc... Wait, I think you are waiting for that retired Bishop on that lonely island to make a legal declaration of all of these issues? Is that it John, really?

You really do have no idea. God arranges all things. If He wanted to outlaw the masses of nearly all trad priests, on the grounds that they don't happen to agree with the opinions of Jorge Armendariz, then He would do so. Don't you think? Or do you really think that since God has allowed His Church to be in a mess, this is an invitation for you to step in a provide a bit of much-needed leadership?

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Oct 28, 2014 3:28 am

Jorge Armendariz

Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:14 pmPosts: 210

Re: Sedes, SSPX Masses & Consistency

Quote:

"Moderately grave" is a technical classification and you'll need to consult theological manuals to get your head around it, but in practice I have no doubt that the distress (resulting, objectively, from the situation in the Church since Vatican II, even if as I think the concrete distress itself is a result of error and confusion in your own mind) you would feel at being present at an "una cum" mass would constitute a moderately grave inconvenience, and thus excuse you from the obligation. I emphasise that the excuse is based upon objective factors, not merely subjective, but because the situation is so objectively confused, it is unreasonable to expect all to be clear upon the necessary principles and facts, and judgements arising from those principles and facts.

John the reason why I ask again, is that the answer was not that really clear to me. Maybe if you can help me understand sincerely, why it is that I would be excused. You say that you base this off the objective factor's, but then you emphasize my subjective (errors in my own mind) as the real factor. This is why I think it is confusing, to me, maybe I am over thinking it, but this could me understand where is it that we really differ. If I can't understand your position clearly, then it makes it hard for me to see where we have some common ground.

Here is my understanding of it:So my subjective distress about the una cum, constitutes as a moderately grave excuse, because objectively the situation is confusing as a result of Vatican II. Yet, I have read and understand the errors of Vatican II... So the whole confused environment can only really apply to those who have a basic understanding of the faith, maybe like first Holy communion Catechism and a little bit of adult catechism. This is what I have seen the theological knowledge of the average Joe Catholic, and thus I agree that it is precisely because of this that people who attend una cum are excused. However, what I deny is that this would apply to me since there is no real confusion in my mind about the matter. In order for me to be excused properly, the intellect has to be ignorant, and if it is lacking some knowledge on the matter then it could apply to me. To those who know more, God expects more and they will be judged accordingly. Thus, I am to be held more accountable and guilty, if indeed, I am wrong on this issue. This much you can take to the bank, and I think we can both agree on that.

Also John on a different note, do you have some sort of list of the manuals that you have physically on some website? I am simply interested to know which ones that I have scanned, that I might not have. I will make another post, making the list of the books that I have, maybe someone else can tell me whether there is something that I am currently missing.

What I am doing is trying to put in text, my entire Catholic library (I have around 800 GB's approximately, from what I can estimate in text form this would be very little). PDF's are too large and scanned copies cannot be searched for efficiently. It makes it extremely difficult to add your references, and quotes without having it in text (you have to strip the page, upload it to others or simply type it up yourself). As I have limited amount of time, plus I suffer from RSI, long story short I was stupid in my computer usage I have learned from my mistakes now. I also want to make it easy for others to double check what I say for themselves, instead of making it difficult for others to verify my claims.

What I tend to see lots of people do on the Catholic fora, is they expect other's to do the research and verify (which is fine and dandy if you have only time for that). Its not enough to just give a page, number and author. In an era, where 99% of traditionalist's proof text it is a good thing to be able to efficiently be able to check things. Also having 1000 links to different books, text is not helpful either. Makes it hard to keep up when something is updated etc... I know many of you have put lots of good stuff online, and I don't want to say that is bad. It serves its purpose, but it is definitely not the best way. Anything that helps further Catholic research is ultimately a good thing.

In under 200 GB's of text you can have pretty much every single Catholic book ever written, and I am being generous here its probably even less. Even a cheap laptop in the US for $250 dollars can have a hard drive big enough for that purpose. The end goal is to help lower the barriers of entry and accumulate the efforts everyone has already made. How can we expect for someone to have theology manuals and quote them, if most people on the world don't even have them available or don't have the time to find out which ones are good etc... Its good to demand of people to do their reading, but I think it would greatly aid in the effort to minimize the pain of entry.

"Moderately grave" is a technical classification and you'll need to consult theological manuals to get your head around it, but in practice I have no doubt that the distress (resulting, objectively, from the situation in the Church since Vatican II, even if as I think the concrete distress itself is a result of error and confusion in your own mind) you would feel at being present at an "una cum" mass would constitute a moderately grave inconvenience, and thus excuse you from the obligation. I emphasise that the excuse is based upon objective factors, not merely subjective, but because the situation is so objectively confused, it is unreasonable to expect all to be clear upon the necessary principles and facts, and judgements arising from those principles and facts.

John the reason why I ask again, is that the answer was not that really clear to me. Maybe if you can help me understand sincerely, why it is that I would be excused. You say that you base this off the objective factor's, but then you emphasize my subjective (errors in my own mind) as the real factor. This is why I think it is confusing, to me, maybe I am over thinking it, but this could me understand where is it that we really differ.

Jorge,

Try and get two factors clear in your mind.

1. The objective truth (of principles, facts, e.g. Bergoglio ain't pope, God is three persons in one divine being).2. The status of any given truth or opinion (e.g. de fide, direct deduction from something which is de fide, indirect deduction from something which is de fide, certain fact, probable fact, etc.)

Now, with those in mind, examine the behaviour of St. Thomas More in the crisis brought about by Henry VIII's claim to be head of the Church in England.

1. The truth at issue was the authority of the pope. This was a dogma. 2. The problem was a text which More was asked to swear to, which seemed to conflict with the dogma. This was a question of fact, one which More and others had to determine to the best of their own powers, because the Church had not finally judged the matter.

More, a learned man, had to research it in detail in the Fathers in order to satisfy himself that he couldn't in good conscience take the Oath. He found the truth, which was that the Oath was heretical, and he refused to sign, but all through he:

1. Refused to say why, until after he was condemned, and 2. Declared repeatedly that he did not blame anybody else for signing.

More's behaviour would be criticised by the typical sede on both counts. Against the first, the sede would say that More lacked charity in failing to aid others to reach the truth, by keeping his research and reasoning secret. Against the second, the sede would say that if More was solemnly obliged not to take the Oath, then it must have been objectively wrong to do so, and therefore anybody who did take it was committing a crime of heresy.

The typical sede would be disastrously wrong on both counts, of course. The thing to do, if you find yourself unclear on why, is to realise your own ignorance and set about reading, pondering, and praying, until it lights up for you. This is the kind of thing an argument or two won't fix. It's got to do with the very heart of true spirituality and true religion.

Now, let's look at the problem of going to mass.

The Church is in a mess. Undeniable fact. The layman is left largely to his own resources, because of a lack of learned and authorised clergy. You have to form your own judgements about lots of things, including (because de Lauriers theorised too much and published his theorising) the lawfulness of the "una cum" mass.

1. The objective truth is that such masses are perfectly lawful.2. The status of that truth is that it is a deduction from objectively certain true principles.

You form the judgement that it's probably unlawful. To assist at such a mass would therefore cause you conscience problems. You are not obliged to go.

The objective cause of this excuse is the mess in the Church, which results in the situation where all are obliged to form their own judgements about this question. That is the objective cause of the excuse. Do you see this? It isn't the objectively false judgement (in my opinion) that you have made which constitutes the objective factor resulting in the excuse, it's the very fact that you have been left to your own devices, reliant upon your own best efforts to solve a thorny problem, which constitutes the objective factor.

I add, the mistaken view you take is one which is morally nothing more than a mistake. It's an opinion about a lawfully disputed matter. Morally, a mistaken opinion in one man might be more virtuous, more moral, more pure, than an exactly right opinion in another man (e.g. because the latter accidentally got it right but under the influence of bad motives). In other words, my critics may be right in claiming that I am motivated by sloth, selfishness, and a lack of interest in the truth, in arriving at my view on the "una cum" question, whereas they themselves are pure souls concerned only with the truth and with God's glory. This is summed up as "geography determines theology" in case you don't recognise it. As I say, I may be right for the wrong reasons, and they might be wrong for excellent reasons. So, on judgement day they will receive their reward, but not for being right, rather, for being good.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

However, what I deny is that this would apply to me since there is no real confusion in my mind about the matter. In order for me to be excused properly, the intellect has to be ignorant, and if it is lacking some knowledge on the matter then it could apply to me. To those who know more, God expects more and they will be judged accordingly. Thus, I am to be held more accountable and guilty, if indeed, I am wrong on this issue. This much you can take to the bank, and I think we can both agree on that.

If you really knew more about the question at issue, I concede. But you don't, so I deny.

Those who attend the Novus Ordo Missae are excused because of their ignorance about the nature of that mass. Those who decline to assist at Holy Mass offered by a priest who thinks Bergoglio is pope are excused because they've been fed rubbish by others who appear to be learned and holy.

Jorge Armendariz wrote:

Also John on a different note, do you have some sort of list of the manuals that you have physically on some website?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum